NEW  TESTAMENT 
INTRODUCTION 

(or  special  Canonics) 

...By... 

L.BERKHOF,  B.  D. 


Limited  Edition. 


EERDMANS-SEVENSMA  CO. 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 


}V^ 


PREFACE. 

This  little  work  on  New  Testament  Introduction  is  the  re- 
sult of  labor  done  in  and  for  the  class-room,  and  is  primarily 
intended  for  my  own  students.  It  is  not  and  does  not  pre- 
tend to  be  a  work  of  original  research,  but  depends  in  a 
large  measure  on  the  labors  of  such  men  as  Davidson,  Reuss, 
Weiss,  Westcott,  Lightfoot,  Godet,  Holtzmann,  Julicher, 
Zahn,  e.  a.  The  indebtedness  to  these  will  be  evident  from 
its  pages. 

In  method  of  treatment  I  have  partly  gone  my  own  way, 
both  in  virtue  of  principles  that  are  not  generally  recognized 
in  works  of  Introduction  and  for  practical  considerations. 
As  far  as  the  limits  of  the  work  allowed,  the  directions  given 
by  Dr.  Kuyper  in  his  Encyclopaedia  of  Sacred  Theology  have 
been  followed;  not  only  the  human  but  also  the  divine  side 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  has  been  treated. 

It  has  been  my  constant  endeavor  in  writing  this  book,  to 
make  it  a  work  that  would  introduce  the  students  to  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  they  have  in  fact  been  trans- 
mitted to  the  Church,  and  not  as  some  critic  or  other  would 
have  them  be.  Hence  critical  questions,  though  not  dis- 
regarded, do  not  loom  as  large  on  its  pages  as  they  often  do 
in  works  on  Introduction;  the  positive  constructive  element 
has  a  decided  precedence  over  the  apologetic;  and  the  human 
factor  that  operated  in  the  origin  and  composition  of  the 
Scriptures,  is  not  studied  to  the  neglect  of  the  divine. 

A  limited  number  of  copies  was  printed,  partly  in  de- 
ference to  the  expressed  wish  of  some  of  my  present  and  past 
students,  and  partly  because  I  desire  to  use  it  as  a  text-book 
in  the  future,  there  being  none  of  the  smaller  works  on  In- 
troduction, such  as  those  of  Dods,  Pullan,  Kerr,  Earth, 
Peake  e.  a.,  however  excellent  some  of  them  may  be  in  their 
own  way,  that  gave  me  what  I  desired.  If  the  book  may  in 
some  small  measure  be  instrumental  in  leading  others  to  a 
greater  appreciation  and  an  ever  better  understanding  of  the 
New  Testament  writings,  I  shall  be  very  grateful  indeed. 

L.  BERKHOF. 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  November  30,  1915. 


CONTENTS. 


Prolegomena : 

1  Name  and  Idea 9 

2  Function 10 

3  Leading  Principles 12 

4  Encyclopaedic   Place 13 

5  Historical  Review 14 

6  Select  Literature 15 

The  Gospels  in  General: 

1  The  Title  of  the  Gospels 26 

2  The  Number  of  the  Gospels  recognized  in  the 

Early   Church 28 

3  The  Literary  Character  of  the  Gospels 30 

4  The  Synoptic  Problem 33 

5  The  Relation  of  the  Gospel  of  John  to  the 

Synoptics  42 

6  The  Inspiration  of  the  Gospels 52 

7  The  Canonical  Significance  of  the  Gospels  as 

a  Whole 58 


The  Gospels  Separately: 

1  The  Gospel  of  Matthew 61 

2  The  Gospel  of  Mark 75 

3  The  Gospel  of  Luke 89 

4  The  Gospel  of  John 102 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 117 

The  Epistles  in  General: 

1  The  Epistolary  Form  in  Biblical  Literature....  129 

2  The  Inspiration  of  the  Epistles 131 

3  The  Canonical   Significance  of  the   Epistles 

in  General 133 

4  Classification   135 

The  Epistles  of  Paul:— Paul 139 

1  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans 144 

2  The  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 156 

3  The  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 167 

4  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 176 

5  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 188 

6  The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 199 

7  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 209 

8  The  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians 218 

9  The  second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians 227 

10  The  Pastoral  Epistles — Authorship 235 

11  The  first  Epistle  to  Timothy 245 

12  The  second  Epistle  to  Timothy 252 

13  The  Epistle  to  Titus 256 

14  The  Epistle  to  Philemon 261 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 265 


The  General  Epistles : 

1  The  General  Epistle  of  James 279 

2  The  first  General  Epistle  of  Peter 292 

3  The  second  General  Epistle  of  Peter 306 

4  The  first  General  Epistle  of  John 316 

5  The   second   and   third   General   Epistles   of 

John 325 

6  The  General  Epistle  of  Jude 332 

The  Revelation  of  John 339 


PROLEGOMENA. 


1.     NAME  AND  IDEA. 
The  name  Introduction  or  Isagogks   (from  the  Greek 

etaaYoyi])  did  not  always  denote  what  it  does  today.  As 
it  is  used  by  the  monk  Adrianus  (circa  440)  and  by 
Cassiodorus  (circa  570),  it  designates  a  conglomeration  of 
linguistic,  rhetorical,  archaeological,  geographical  and  his- 
torical matter,  such  as  might  be  helpful  in  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture.  In  course  of  time  the  connotation  of  the 
word  changed.  Michaelis  (1750)  was  the  first  one  to 
employ  it  in  something  like  its  present  sense,  when  he 
entitled  his  work,  devoted  to  the  literary  historical  questions 
of  the  New  Testament,  Einleitung  in  die  gottlichen 
Schriften  des  neuen  Bundes.  The  study  of  Introduction 
was  gradually  limited  to  an  investigation  of  the  origin,  the 
composition,  the  history,  and  the  significance  of  the  Bible 
as  a  whole  (General  Introduction),  or  of  its  separate  books 
(Special  Introduction).  But  as  a  designation  of  this  disci- 
pline the  name  Introduction  did  not  meet  with  general 
approval.  It  was  pointed  out — and  correctly  so — that  the 
name  is  too  comprehensive,  since  there  are  other  disciplinae 
that  introduce  to  the  study  of  the  Bible ;  and  that  it  does  not 
express  the  essential  character  of  the  discipline,  but  only  one 
of  its  practical  uses. 

Several  attempts  have  been  made  to  supply  a  name  that 
is  more  in  harmony  with  the  central  contents  and  the 
unifying  principle  of  this  study.  But  opinions  differed  as 
to  the  essential  character  of  the  discipline.  Some  scholars, 
as  Reuss,  Credner  and  Hupfeld,  emphasizing  its  historical 
nature,  would  designate  it  by  a  name  something  like  that 


10  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

already  employed  by  Richard  Simon  in  1678,  when  he 
styled  his  work,  ''Critical  History  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Thus  Hupfeld  says :  "Der  eigentliche  und  allein  richtige 
Name  der  Wissenschaft  in  ihrem  heutigen  Sinn  ist  demnach 
Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  Alten  und  Neuen  Testa- 
ments." Begriff  und  Methode  des  sogenannten  biblischen 
Einleitung  p.  12.  Reuss  arranged  his  work  entirely  on  this 
principle.  It  was  objected,  however,  by  several  scholars  that 
a  history  of  the  Biblical  literature  is  now,  and  perhaps  for 
all  time  an  impossibility,  and  that  such  a  treatment  necessar- 
ily leads  to  a  co-ordination  of  the  canonical  and  the  apocry- 
phal books.  And  this  is  just  what  we  find  in  the  History  of 
Reuss.  Hence  the  great  majority  of  New  Testament 
scholars,  as  Bleek,  Weiss,  Davidson,  Holtzmann,  Jiilicher, 
Zahn  e.  a.  prefer  to  retain  the  old  name,  either  with  or  with- 
out the  qualification,  "historical-critical." 

Another  and  important  stricture  on  the  name  suggested 
by  Hupfeld,  is  that  it  loses  sight  of  the  theological  character 
of  this  discipline.  Holtzmann  correctly  says :  "Als  Glied 
des  Organismus  der  theologischen  Wissenschaften  ist  die 
biblische  Einleitung  allerdings  nur  vom  Begriffe  des  Kanons 
aus  zu  begreifen,  nur  in  ihm  findet  sie  ihre  innere  Einheit," 
Historisch-critische  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament  p.  11. 
This  consideration  also  leads  Kuyper  to  prefer  the  name, 
Special  Canonics.  Encyclopaedic  der  Heilige  Godgeleerdheid 
III  p.  22  ff.  Ideally  this  name  is  probably  the  best;  it  is 
certainly  better  than  the  others,  but  for  practical  reasons 
it  seems  preferable  to  abide  by  the  generally  recognized 
name  Introduction.  There  is  no  serious  objection  to  this, 
if  we  but  remember  its  deficiency,  and  bear  in  mind  that 
verba  valent  usu. 

2.     FUNCTION. 

What  is  the  proper  function  of  this  discipline  ?  Accord- 
ing to  De  Wette  it  must  answer  the  questions :  "Was  ist 
die  Bibel,  und  wie  ist  sie  geworden  was  sie  ist?"  Hupfeld 
objects  to  the  first  question  that  it  has  no  place  in  a  histor- 


PROLEGOMENA  11 

ical  inquiry ;  hence  he  would  change  it  a  little  and  state  the 
problem  as  follows  :  "Was  war  en  die  unter  den  Namen  des 
Bibel  vereinigten  Schriften  ursprunglich,  und  wie  sind  sie 
geworden  was  sie  jetzt  sind?"  Begriff  u.  Meth.  p.  13.  It  is 
now  generally  understood  and  admitted  that  the  study  must 
investigate  the  questions  of  the  authorship,  the  composition, 
the  history,  the  purpose  and  the  canonicity  of  the  different 
books  of  the  Bible. 

A  difference  of  opinion  becomes  apparent,  however,  as 
soon  as  we  ask,  whether  the  investigation  should  be  limited 
to  the  canonical  books,  or  should  include  the  Apocrypha  as 
well.  The  answer  to  that  question  will  necessarily  depend 
on  one's  standpoint.  They  who  regard  Introduction  as  a 
purely  historical  study  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Christian  litera- 
ture, will  hold  with  Rabiger  and  Reuss  that  the  apocryphal 
books  must  also  receive  due  consideration.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  who  desire  to  maintain  the  theological  character 
of  this  discipline  and  believe  that  it  finds  its  unity  in  the 
idea  of  the  canon,  will  exclude  the  Apocrypha  from  the 
investigation. 

A  similar  difference  obtains  with  reference  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  it  is  only  the  human  or  also  the  divine  side 
of  the  canonical  books  that  should  be  the  object  of  study. 
It  is  perfectly  obvious  that,  if  the  discipHne  be  regarded 
as  a  purely  historical  one,  the  divine  factor  that  operated 
in  the  composition  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  and  that  gives 
them  their  permanent  canonical  significance,  cannot  come  in 
consideration.  The  Word  of  God  must  then  be  treated 
like  all  purely  human  compositions.  This  is  the  stand  taken 
by  nearly  all  writers  on  Introduction,  and  Hupfeld  believes 
that  even  so  it  is  possible  to  maintain  the  theological  char- 
acter of  the  discipline.  Begriff  u.  Meth.  p.  17.  It  appears 
to  us,  however,  that  this  is  impossible,  and  with  Kuyper 
we  hold  that  we  should  not  only  study  the  human,  but 
should  also  have  regard  to  the  divine  side  of  the  Biblical 
books,  notably  to  their  inspiration  and  canonical  significance. 


12  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Lastly  the  conception  of  the  final  aim  of  this  study  also 
varies.  Many  scholars  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  the  final 
purpose  of  Introduction  to  determine  in  a  historico-critical 
way  what  part  of  the  Biblical  writings  are  credible  and 
therefore  really  constitute  the  Word  of  God.  Human 
reason  is  placed  as  an  arbiter  over  the  divine  Revelation. 
This,  of  course,  cannot  be  the  position  of  those  who  believe 
that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God.  This  belief  is  our 
starting  point  and  not  our  goal  in  the  study  of  Introduction. 
Thus  we  begin  with  a  theological  postulate,  and  our  aim  is 
to  set  forth  the  true  character  of  Scripture,  in  order  to 
explain,  why  the  Church  universal  honors  it  as  the  Word 
of  God ;  to  strengthen  the  faith  of  believers ;  and  to  vindi- 
cate the  claims  of  the  canonical  books  over  against  the 
assaults  of  Rationalism. 

To  define :  Introduction  is  that  Bibliological  discipline 
that  investigates  the  origin,  composition,  history  and  pur- 
pose of  the  Scriptural  writings,  on  their  human  side ;  and 
their  inspiration  and  canonical  significance,  on  the  divine 
side. 

3.     LEADING  PRINCIPLES. 

There  are  certain  fundamental  principles  that  guide  us 
in  our  investigation,  which  it  is  desirable  to  state  at  the 
outset,  in  order  that  our  position  may  be  perfectly  clear. 
For  the  sake  of  brevity  we  do  not  seek  to  establish  them 
argumentatively. 

1.  For  us  the  Bible  as  a  whole  and  in  all  its  parts  is 
the  very  Word  of  God,  written  by  men  indeed,  but  organ- 
ically inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  not  the  natural 
product  of  the  religious  development  of  men,  not  merely 
the  expression  of  the  subjective  religious  consciousness  of 
believers.  Resting,  as  it  ultimately  does,  on  the  testimony 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  no  amount  of  historical  investigation 
can  shake  this  conviction. 

2.  This  being  our  position,  we  unflinchingly  accept  all 
that  the  various  books  of  the  Bible  tell  us  concerning  their 


PROLEGOMENA  13 

authorship,  destination,  composition,  inspiration,  etc.  Only 
in  cases  where  the  text  is  evidently  corrupt,  will  we  hesitate 
to  accept  their  dicta  as  final.  This  applies  equally  to  all 
parts  of  the  Word  of  God. 

3.  Since  we  do  not  believe  that  the  Bible  is  the  result 
of  a  purely  natural  development,  but  regard  it  as  the  product 
of  supernatural  revelation,  a  revelation  that  often  looks 
beyond  the  immediate  present,  we  cannot  allow  the  so-called 
seitgeschichtliche  arguments  the  force  which  they  are  often 
supposed  to  have. 

4.  While  it  is  the  prevailing  habit  of  many  New  Tes- 
tament scholars  to  discredit  what  the  early  Church  fathers 
say  respecting  the  books  of  the  Bible,  because  of  the  uncrit- 
ical character  of  their  work,  we  accept  those  early  traditions 
as  trustworthy  until  they  are  clearly  proven  unreliable. 
The  character  of  those  first  witnesses  warrants  this  position, 

5.  We  regard  the  use  of  working-hypotheses  as  per- 
fectly legitimate  within  certain  limits.  They  may  render 
good  service,  when  historical  evidence  fails,  but  even  then 
may  not  go  contrary  to  the  data  at  hand,  and  the  problem- 
atic character  of  the  results  to  which  they  lead  must  always 
be  borne  in  mind. 

6.  It  is  not  assumed  that  the  problems  of  New  Testa- 
ment Introduction  are  insignificant,  and  that  all  the  diffi- 
culties that  present  themselves  can  easily  be  cleared  up. 
Whatever  our  standpoint,  whatever  our  method  of  proced- 
ure in  studying  these  problems,  we  shall  sometimes  have 
to  admit  our  ignorance,  and  often  find  reason  to  confess 
that  we  know  but  in  part. 

ENCYCLOPAEDIC  PLACE. 

There  is  little  uniformity  in  Theological  Encyclopaedias 
with  respect  to  the  proper  place  of  this  discipline.  They 
all  correctly  place  it  among  the  Exegetical  (Bibliological) 
group  of  Theological  disciplinse,  but  its  relation  to  the  other 
studies  of  that  group  is  a  matter  of  dispute.  The  most  usual 
arrangement  is  that  of  Hagenbach,  followed  in  our  country 


14  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

by  Schaff,  Crooks  and  Hurst  and  Weidner,  viz. :  Biblical 
Philology,  dealing  with  the  words,  and  Biblical  Archaeology, 
in  its  broadest  sense,  with  the  things  of  the  Bible ;  Biblical 
Introduction,  treating  of  the  fortunes,  and  Biblical  Criti- 
cism, supplying  the  test  of  Scripture;  Biblical  Hermeneu- 
tics,  relating  to  the  theory,  and  Biblical  Exegesis,  pertaining 
to  the  practice  of  interpretation.  The  order  of  Rabiger  is 
unusual:  Hermeneutics,  Linguistics,  Criticism,  Antiquities, 
Biblical  History,  Isagogics,  Exegesis,  and  Biblical  theology. 
The  disposition  of  Kuyper  and  Cave  is  preferable  to  either 
one  of  these.  They  place  Introduction  (Canonics)  first,  as 
pertaining  to  the  formal  side  of  Scripture  as  a  book,  and 
then  let  the  studies  follow  that  have  reference  to  the  formal 
and  material  side  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible. 

HISTORICAL  REVIEW. 

Although  the  beginnings  of  New  Testament  Isagogics 
are  already  found  in  Origen,  Dionysius  and  Eusehius;  and 
in  the  time  of  the  Reformation  some  attention  was  devoted 
to  it  by  Pagninus,  Sixtus  of  Siene  and  Serarius  among  the 
Roman  Catholics ;  by  Walther  of  the  Lutherans ;  and  by  the 
Reformed  scholars  Rivetus  and  Heidegger ; — Richard  Simon 
is  generally  regarded  as  the  father  of  this  study.  His  works 
were  epoch-making  in  this  respect,  though  they  had  refer- 
ence primarily  to  the  language  of  the  New  Testament.  He 
minimized  the  divine  element  in  Scripture.  Michaelis,  who 
in  his,  Einleitung  in  die  gottlichen  Schriften  des  neuen 
Bundes,  1750,  produced  the  first  Introduction  in  the  modern 
sense,  though  somewhat  dependent  on  Simon,  did  not  alto- 
gether share  his  rationalistic  views.  Yet  in  the  succeeding 
editions  of  his  work  he  gradually  relaxed  on  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration,  and  attached  no  value  to  the  Testimonium 
Spiritus  Sancti. 

The  next  significant  contribution  to  the  science  was  made 
by  Semler  in  his,  Ahhandlung  von  freier  Untersuchung  des 
Kanons,  1771-75.  He  broke  with  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion and  held  that  the  Bible  was  not,  but  contained  the  Word 
of  God,  which  could  be  discovered  only  by  the  inner  light. 


PROLEGOMENA  15 

All  questions  of  authenticity  and  credibility  had  to  be 
investigated  voraussetzungslos.  Eichhorn  also  departed 
decidedly  from  traditional  views  and  was  the  first  to  fix 
attention  on  the  Synoptic  problem,  for  which  he  sought  the 
solution  in  his  Urevangelium,  1804-27.  At  the  same  time 
the  Johannine  problem  was  placed  in  the  foreground  by 
several  scholars,  especially  by  Bretschneider,  1820.  An 
acute  defender  of  the  traditional  views  arose  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  scholar  Hug,  who  fought  the  rationalistic  critics 
with  their  own  weapons. 

Meanwhile  the  Mediating  school  made  its  appearance 
under  the  leadership  of  Schleiermacher,  The  critics  belong- 
ing to  that  school  sought  a  mean  between  the  positions  of 
Rationalism  and  the  traditional  views.  They  were  naturally 
divided  into  two  sections,  the  naturalistic  wing,  inclining 
towards  the  position  of  Semler  and  Eichhorn ;  and  the 
evangelical  wing,  leaning  decidedly  toward  traditionalism. 
Of  the  first  class  De  Wette  was  the  ablest  exponent,  though 
his  work  was  disappointing  as  to  positive  results ;  while 
Credner,  following  in  general  the  same  line,  emphasized  the 
historical  idea  in  the  study  of  Introduction.  The  other  wing 
was  represented  by  Guericke,  Olshausen  and  Meander. 

The  Tubingen  school  of  New  Testament  criticism  took 
its  rise  with  F.  C.  Batir,  1792-1860,  who  applied  the 
Hegelian  principle  of  development  to  the  literature  of  the 
New  Testament.  According  to  him  the  origin  of  the  New 
Testament,  too,  finds  its  explanation  in  the  three-fold 
process  of  thesis,  antithesis  and  synthesis.  There  was 
action,  reaction  and  compromise.  Paul  defended  his  posi- 
tion in  the  four  great  epistles  (Romans,  I  and  II  Corinth- 
ians and  Galatians),  the  only  genuine  productions  of  the 
apostle.  This  position  is  assailed  by  the  Apocalypse,  the 
sole  work  of  John.  And  all  the  other  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  were  written  by  others  than  their  reputed 
authors  in  the  interest  of  reconciliation,  the  fourth  Gospel 
and  the  first  Epistle  of  John  issuing  in  the  blending  of  the 
different  parties.     Among  the  immediate  followers  of  Baur 


16  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 


we  have  especially  Zeller,  Schwegler  and  Kostlin.  The 
further  adherents  of  the  school,  such  as  Hilgenfeld,  Hoist  en 
and  Davidson,  modified  the  views  of  Baur  considerably ; 
while  later  German  scholars,  as  Pfieiderer,  Hausrath,  Holtz- 
mann,  Weizsdcker  and  Jillicher,  broke  with  the  distinctive 
Tubingen  theory  and  indulged  independently  in  rationalistic 
criticism.  The  wildest  offshoot  of  the  Tubingen  school  was 
Bruno  Bauer,  who  rejected  even  the  four  epistles  regarded 
as  genuine  by  F.  C.  Baur.  He  had  no  followers  in  Ger- 
many, but  of  late  his  views  found  support  in  the  writings 
of  the  Dutch  school  of  Pierson,  Naber,  Loman  and  Van 
Manen,  and  in  the  criticism  of  the  Swiss  scholar  Steck. 

Opposition  to  the  radicalism  of  the  Tubingen  school 
became  apparent  in  two  directions.  Some  scholars,  as  Bleek, 
Ewald,  Reuss,  without  intending  a  return  to  the  traditional 
standpoint,  discarded  the  subjective  element  of  the  Tubingen 
theory,  the  Hegelian  principle  of  thesis,  antithesis  and  syn- 
thesis, in  connection  with  the  supposed  second  century 
struggle  between  Petrine  and  Pauline  factions.  Ritschl  also 
broke  away  from  the  Tubingen  tendency,  but  substituted 
an  equally  subjective  principle  of  criticism  by  applying  his 
favorite  W erthurtheile  to  the  authentication  of  the  books  of 
the  Bible.  He  had,  as  he  claimed,  no  interest  in  saving 
mere  objective  statements.  What  had  for  him  the  value 
of  a  divine  revelation  was  regarded  as  authentic.  Some 
of  his  most  prominent  followers  are  Harnack,  Schiirer  and 
Wendt. 

An  evangelical  reaction  against  the  subjective  Tubingen 
vagaries  also  made  its  appearance  in  Ebrard,  Dietlein, 
Thiersch,  Lechler,  and  the  school  of  Hofmann,  who  himself 
defended  the  genuineness  of  all  the  New  Testament  books. 
His  disciples  are  Luthardt,  Gran,  Nosgen  and  Th.  Zahn. 
The  works  of  Beischlag  and  B.  Weiss  are  also  quite  con- 
servative. Moreover  the  writings  of  such  men  as  Lightfoot, 
Westcott,  Ellicott,  Godet,  Dods,  Pullan  e.  a.  maintain  with 
great  ability  the  traditional  position  respecting  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament. 


SELECT  LITERATURE 

Including  the  Works  referred  to  in  the  Text. 

In  order  that  the  list  may  serve  as  a  guide  for  students,  both 

the  edition  and  the  value  of  the  books  are  indicated. 


I. 
BOOKS   ON   INTRODUCTION,   BIBLE   DICTION- 
ARIES AND  RELATED  WORKS. 

Alexander,  The  Canon  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 

Philadelphia  1851.     Conservative. 
Andrews,  The  Life  of  our  Lord  upon  the  Earth,  New 

York  1894.     Excellent  for  chronological  and  historical 

discussions. 
Bai  JON,  Geschiedenis  van  de  Boeken  des  Nieuwen   Ver- 

honds,  Groningen  1901.     Scholarly  with  a  liberal  point 

of  view. 
Barth,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  Giitersloh  1908 ; 

2d  edit,  since  published.    Conservative  and  good. 
Baur,  Church  History  of  the  first  three  Centuries,  London 

1878-79.      Brilliant    but    written    with    a    rationalistic 

tendency. 
Bernard,  The  Progress  of  Doctrine  in  the  New  Testament, 

New  York  1864;  4th  edit.  1878.     A  conservative  and 

valuable  work. 
Blass,  Crammatik  des  neutestamentlichen  Griechisch,  Gott- 

ingen    1911.      Supercedes   Winer  and    Buttmann,   but 

does  not  render  them  worthless.    An  excellent  work. 
Bleek,  Einleitung  in   das  Neue  Testament,  4th   edit,  by 

Mangold,  Berlin   1886.     Eng.  transl.  by  W.  Urwick, 

London  1870.    One  of  the  best  works  on  N.  T.  Introd. 

Standpoint,  moderately  liberal. 


,/ 


18  NEW  TESTAMENT   INTRODUCTION 

Buckley,  Introduction  to  the  Synoptic  Problem,  London 
1912.    Proceeds  on  the  Combinations-hypothese. 

Clark,  Geo.  W.,  Harmony  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
Philadelphia  1897.    A  very  useful  work. 

Davidson,  S.,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, London  1894.  Scholarly,  but  extremely  ration- 
alistic and  verbose. 

Davis,  A  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Philadelphia  1903.  The 
best  one  volume  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

Deissmann,  Light  from  the  Ancient  East,  London  1911. 
Very  valuable  for  the  new  light  it  sheds  on  the  language 
of  the  N.  T. 

Deissmann,  St.  Paul,  a  Study  in  Social  and  Religious  His- 
tory, London  1912.    A  vivid  and  delightful  portrayal  of 
Paul  and  his  world. 
^   DoDS,  An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  London.    A 
useful  manual. 

Farrar,  The  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  London  1879. 
Instructive  and  written  in  a  beautiful  style,  but  not 
always  characterized  by  sobriety. 
^  GoDET,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  I  Pauline 
Epistles,  Edinburgh  1894;  //  The  Collection  of  the 
Four  Gospels  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  Edin- 
burgh 1899.  Scholarly  and  conservative;  devotes 
much  space  to  the  contents  of  the  books. 

GoDET,  Bijbelstudien  over  het  Niemve  Testament,  Amster- 
dam. Contains  introductions  to  the  Gospels  and  the 
Apocalypse. 

Gregory,  D.  S.,  Why  Four  Gospels,  New  York  1907.  The 
work  of  a  conservative  scholar,  valuable  in  differentiat- 
ing the  Gospels. 

Gregory,  C.  R.,  Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament, 
New  York  1907.  A  scholarly  and  moderately  con- 
servative work. 

Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  dealing  with  its 
Language,  Literature  and  Contents,  New  York  1900-04. 


SELECT  LITERATURE  19 

Contains  valuable  introductions  to  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  Those  pertaining  to  the  New  Testament  are 
characterized  by  greater  moderation  than  those  relating 
to  the  Old ;  the  latter  are  often  extremely  rationalistic, 
the  former  usually  moderately  conservative. 

Hausrath,  History  of  New  Testament  Times :  The  Life  of 
Jesus  2  vols.,  Edinburgh  1878-80;  The  Life  of  the 
Apostles  4  vols.,  Edinburgh  1895.  A  learned  work, 
full  of  information,  but  extremely  rationalistic. 

Hill,  Introduction  to  the  Life  of  Christ,  New  York  1911. 
A  concise  statement  of  the  problems  that  enter  into  a 
study  of  the  Life  of  Christ. 

HoLDSWORTH,  Gospel  Origins.  New  York  1913.  Though 
differing  somewhat  from  the  work  of  Buckley,  it  also 
advocates  the  Combinations-hypothese. 

HoLTZMANN,  Historisch-critische  Einleitung  in  das  Neue 
Testament,  Freiburg  1892.  Perhaps  the  most  important 
representative  of  the  rationalistic  position  in  New  Tes- 
tament study.  Very  learned,  and  rich  in  historical 
matter. 

JiJLiCHER,  Einleitung  in  des  Neue  Testament,  Leipzig 
1906.  A  scholarly  work,  written  from  the  rationalistic 
point  of  view. 

King,  The  Theology  of  Christ's  Teaching,  New  York  1903. 
Conservative  and  very  instructive ;  weak  in  genetic 
treatment. 

Kerr,  Introduction  to  New  Testafnent  Study,  New  York 
1892.    A  conservative  manual. 

KuYPER,  Encyclopaedic  der  Heilige  Godgeleerdheid,  Am- 
sterdam 1894. 

LuTHARDT,  St.  lohn  the  Author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
Edinburgh  1875.  An  able  conservative  defense,  con- 
taining a  large  Bibliography  by  C.  R.  Gregory. 

McGiFFERT,  The  Apostolic  Age,  New  York  1910.  A  schol- 
arly but  rationalizing  work. 

Moffat,  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New 


y 


20  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Testament,  New  York  1911.     Very  able,  but  vitiated 

by  rationalistic  principles. 
Norton,   Genuineness  of  the  Gospels  (abridged),  Boston 

1890.     An  able  defense  of  the  Gospels.     The  author 

adheres  to  the  Traditions-hypothese. 
^  Peake,   a    Critical  Introduction   to   the  New   Testament, 

New  York   1910.     Well  written,  able,   but  following 

the  line  of  negative  criticism. 
PuLLAN,  The  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  London  1901. 

A  very  useful  manual ;  conservative. 
'    PuRVES,  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  New  York  1900. 

The  work  of  a  scholar.    In  point  of  view  the  antipode 

of  McGififert's  book. 
Ramsay,  Historical  Commentary  on  the  Galatians,  London 

1899. 
Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveler  and   the  Roman  Citizen, 

London  1903. 
Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  London  1893. 
Ramsay,  Luke  the  Physician   (and  other   Studies),   New 

York  1908.     The  works  of  Ramsay  have  a  charm  of 

their  own :  they  are  original  and  informing,  based  on 

large  historical  and  archaeological  knowledge,  and,  on 

the  whole,  written  in  a  conservative  spirit. 
Real-En CYCLOP^DiE,  Hauck,  Leipzig  1896-1909.    Contains 

very  valuable  material  for  New  Testament  study,  but 

many  of  its  articles  are  marred  by  their  destructive 

tendency. 
Reuss,  History  of  the  New  Testament,  Boston  1884.    The 

work  of  a  great  scholar;  its  method  is  peculiar;  its 

standpoint  moderately  rationalistic. 
V    Salmon,  Historical  Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New 

Testament,  New  York  1889.    The  antipode  of  David- 
son's Introduction ;  very  able,  but  suffering  from  want 

of  method. 
ScHURER,  Geschichte  des  Judischcn  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesu 

Christi,  Leipzig  1901-1911.    The  greatest  work  on  the 


SELECT  LITERATURE  21 

subject,  but,  on  account  of  its  liberal  tendency,  to  be 

used  with  care. 
SiMCOX,    Writers  of  the  New  Testament,   London   1890. 

Contains  a  lucid  discussion  of  the  style  of  the  N.  T. 

writers. 
Stevens,  Johannine  Theology,  New  York  1894. 
Stevens,  Pauline  Theology,  New  York  1903.    Both  works 

are  stimulating  and  helpful,  but  must  be  used  with 

discrimination. 
Urquhart,   The  Bible,  its  Structure  and  Purpose,   New 

York  1904. 
Urquhart,  The  New  Biblical  Guide,  London.    Written  by 

a   staunch   defender   of    the   Bible,    in   popular   style. 

Often  helpful,  especially  the  last  work,  in  clearing  up 

difficulties ;  but  sometimes  too  confident  and  fanciful. 
Van  Melle,  Inleiding  tot  het  Nieuive  Testament,  Utrecht 

1908.    A  very  good  manual ;  conservative  in  spirit. 
Von  Soden,  Urchristliche  Literaturgeschichte,  Berlin  1905. 

Rationalistic. 
Weiss,  Manual  of  Introduction  to   the  New  Testament,     y 

London  1888.     One  of  the  best  Introductions  to  the 

New  Testament.     Moderately  conservative. 
Weiss,  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  Edinburgh  1892-3. 

On  the  whole  the  best  work  on  the  subject. 
Westcott,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  Bos- 
ton 1902.    Very  helpful  in  differentiating  the  Gospels ; 

defends  the  Traditions-hypothese. 
Westcott,    The  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  London 

1881.     One  of  the  best  works  on  the  Canon  of  the 

N.  T. 
Westcott  and  Hort,  The  New  Testament  in  the  original 

Greek;  Introduction  and  Appendix,  New  York  1882. 

The  indispensible  companion  to  the  Greek  Testament, 

if  one  desires  the  reasons  for  the  readings  adopted. 
Wrede,  The  Origin  of  the  New  Testament,  London  1909. 

Very  brief  and  radical. 


22  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Wright,  A  Synopsis  of  the  Gospels  in  Greek,  London  1903. 
The  most  able  presentation  of  the  Traditions-hypothese. 
V  Zahn,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  Leipzig  1900;  3. 
Aufl.  1906;  Eng.  transl.  Edinburgh  1909.  A  work  of 
immense  learning;  the  best  on  N.  T.  Introduction  from 
the  conservative  side. 

II. 

COMMENTARIES. 

Alexander,  Commentaries  on  Matthezv,  New  York  1867; 
Mark,  New  York  1870;  Acts  4th  edit.  New  York  1884. 
Valuable  works,  containing  sound  learning  and  thor- 
oughly conservative. 

Alford,  The  Greek  Testament,  Cambridge  1894 ;  Vol  I,  7th 
edit. ;  Vol.  II,  7th  edit. ;  Vol.  Ill,  5th  edit. ;  Vol.  IV,  5th 
edit,  A  truly  great  work ;  brief,  lucid,  scholarly,  con- 
servative, embodying  the  results  of  German  scholar- 
ship, yet  with  a  measure  of  independence,  though  in 
some  parts  leaning  rather  much  on  Meyer.  Still  very 
useful,  though  not  up  to  date.  Contains  valuable 
Prolegomena. 

Barde,  Kommentaar  op  de  Handelingen  der  Apostelen, 
Kampen  1910.  A  good  commentary,  written  in  a  con- 
servative spirit. 

Beet,  Commentaries  on  Romans,  10th  edit. ;  /  and  II  Cor- 
inthians, 7th  edit. ;  Galatians,  6th  edit. ;  and  Ephesians, 
Philippians,  Colossians,  3d  edit.,  all  London  1891-1903. 
Good  commentaries  by  a  Methodist  scholar ;  conserva- 
tive, but  must  be  used  with  care,  especially  in  passages 
pertaining  to  election,  the  doctrine  of  the  last  things, 
e.  a. 

Biesterveld,  De  Brief  van  Paulus  aan  de  Colossensen, 
Kampen  1908.    An  excellent  work. 

Brown,  J.,  Expositions  of  Galatians,  Edinburgh  1853 ; 
Hebrews,   Edinburgh    1862;  and  /  Peter,   Edinburgh 


SELECT  LITERATURE  23 

1866.  Sound  works  of  a  Puritan  divine,  learned  but 
somewhat  diffuse. 

Calvin,  Commentaries  in  Opera,  Vols.  24-55.  There  is  a 
fairly  good  English  translation  of  the  Calvin  Transla- 
tion Society.  Calvin  was  undoubtedly  the  greatest 
exegete  among  the  Reformers.  The  value  of  his 
exegetical  work  is  generally  recognized  by  present  day 
scholars. 

Eadie,  Commentaries  on  Galatians,  1869 ;  Ephesians,  1883 ; 
Colossians,  1884;  Philippians,  1884;  Thessalonians, 
1877,  all  at  Edinburgh.  Able  and  reliable  works  of 
a  Presbyterian  scholar. 

Edwards  T.  C,  Commentary  on  /  Corinthians,  3d  edit. 
London  1897.  A  good  and  learned  commentary, 
though  sometimes  a  little  over-strained. 

Ellicott,  Commentaries  on  /  Corinthians,  Andover  1889; 
Galatians,  1867 ;  Ephesians,  1884 ;  Philippians  and 
Colossians,  1861 ;  Thessalonians,  1866 ;  Pastoral  Epis- 
tles, 1869,  all  at  London.  Very  able  grammatical  com- 
mentaries ;  conservative. 

Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  London  1912.  A  very  schol- 
arly work  on  the  order  of  Alford's  Greek  Testament; 
being  more  recent,  it  supersedes  the  latter.  Stand- 
point is  on  the  whole  moderately  conservative ;  it  con- 
tains valuable  introductions. 

GoDET,  Commentaries  on  Luke,  1875 ;  John,  1877 ;  Romans, 
1886;  /  Corinthians,  1886-7,  all  at  Edinburgh.  Very 
able  and  reliable. 

Greydanus,  De  Openbaring  des  Heeren  aan  Johannes, 
Doesburg.    A  good  popular  commentary. 

Hodge,  Commentaries  on  Romans,  2d  edit.  1886 ;  /  Corinth- 
ians, 1860 ;  //  Corinthians,  1860 ;  Ephesians,  1886. 
Admirable  commentaries,  especialy  the  one  on  Romans. 

International  Critical  Commentary,  New  York,  in  course  of 
publication.      Some    volumes    of    exceptional    value; 


24  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

others  of  inferior  merit.  Characterized  by  a  rational- 
istic tendency,  especially  the  volumes  on  the  O.  T, 

Lange,  a  Commentary  on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  Critical, 
Doctrinal  and  Homiletical.  On  the  whole  a  useful 
work ;  New  Testament  far  better  than  the  Old.  Often 
suffers  for  want  of  clearness,  and  sometimes  loses 
itself  in  mystical  speculations.  Its  Homiletical  material 
has  little  value. 

LiGHTFOOT,  Commentaries  on  Galatians,  1895 ;  Philip pians, 
1895 ;  Colossians  and  Philemon,  1895,  all  at  London. 
Very  able  commentaries,  containing  valuable  disserta- 
tions.   Conservative. 

Meyer  (Liinemann,  Huther  and  Diisterdieck),  Commentary 
on  the  New  Testament,  New  York  1890.  Meyer  is 
recognized  as  the  prince  of  grammatical  commentators. 
Parts  of  Vol.  8  and  Vols.  9,  10,  11,  contain  the  work 
of  Liinemann,  Huther  and  Diisterdieck,  which  though 
good,  is  not  up  to  the  standard  of  Meyer's  work. 
Standpoint :  moderately  conservative.  Last  German 
edition  by  Weiss,  Haupt  e.  a.  is  no  more  the  work  of 
Meyer. 

Olshausen,  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  New 
York  1860-72.  Quite  good.  Excells  in  organic  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture ;  but  its  mysticism  often  runs 
wild. 

Pulpit  Commentary,  London  1880  sqq.  This,  as  its  name 
indicates,  is  far  more  homiletical  than  exegetical ;  yet  it 
contains  some  real  exposition. 

Stier,  The  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  New  York  1864.  Very 
useful,  but  often  fanciful  and  diffuse ;  devout,  but  fre- 
quently characterized  by  too  great  a  desire  to  find  a 
deeper  meaning  in  Scripture. 

Strack  und  Zockler,  Kursgefasster  Commentar  zu  den 
Schriften  des  Alten  und  Neuen  Testaments,  sowie  zu 
den  Apokryphen,  Munchen  1886-93.     One  of  the  best 


SELECT  LITERATURE  25 

recent  German  commentaries.  Moderately  conserva- 
tive. 

Vincent^  Word  Studies  in  the  New  Testament,  New  York 
1887-9L    Contains  some  useful  material. 

Westcott,  Commentaries  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  1890;  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  1892 ;  and  the  Epistles  of  John, 
t905,  all  at  London.    All  very  scholarly  and  reliable. 

Zahn^  Kommentar  sum  Neuen  Testament  (several  co-labo- 
rators),  Erlangen  1903  sqq.,  still  in  course  of  publica- 
tion. '  Will  constitute  one  of  the  best  conservative  com- 
mentaries of  the  New  Testament. 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL. 


THE  TITLE  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

The  shortest  form  of  the  title  is  v-aia  MairOatov,  xaxa 
Mapxov,  etc.  The  Textus  Receptus  and  some  of  the  Mnn. 
have  TO  xa-ra  MaTOatov  suaYYeXiov ;  but  the  greater  part 
of  the  Mjj.  read  suaYyeXiov  /.axa  MaxOatov,  etc. 

The  word  euaY^sXiov  passed  through  three  stages  in  the 
history  of  its  use.  In  the  older  Greek  authors  it  signified 
a  reward  for  bringing  good  tidings;  also,  a  thankoffering  for 
good  tidings  brought.  Next  in  later  Greek  it  indicated  the 
good  news  itself.  And  finally  it  was  employed  to  denote 
the  books  in  which  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  is  presented  in 
historic  form.  It  is  used  very  extensively  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  always  in  the  second  sense,  signifying  the  good 
news  of  God,  the  message  of  salvation.  This  meaning  is 
also  retained  in  the  title  of  the  gospels.  The  first  trace  of 
the  word  as  indicating  a  written  gospel  is  found  in  the 
Didache,  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  discovered 
in  1873  and  in  all  probability  composed  between  the  years 
90  and  100  A.  D.  This  contains  the  following  exhortation 
in  15:3:  "And  reprove  one  another  not  in  wrath  but  in 
peace,  as  ye  have  it  in  the  Gospel.  Here  the  word  suafY^^'O"^ 
evidently  refers  to  a  written  record.  It  is  very  explicitly  and 
repeatedly  applied  to  a  written  account  of  the  life  of  Christ 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The  plural 
&ua-{yi\ia,  signifying  the  four  Gospels,  is  first  found  in 
Justin  Martyr,  about  152  A.  D. 

The  expression  v.ixxa  MaxOatov,  xaxa  Mapxov,  etc.,  has 
often  been  misinterpreted.  Some  maintained  that  /.axa 
simply  indicated  a  genitive  relation,  so  that  we  should  read : 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  27 

the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  etc.  But  if 
this  is  the  idea  intended,  why  was  not  the  simple  genitive 
used,  just  as  it  is  employed  by  Paul,  when  he  expresses  a 
similar  idea,  to  euayyeXtov  [lou,  Rom.  2:16;  16:25?  More- 
over, it  cannot  be  maintained  that  the  preposition  xccza 
is  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  Lamedh  of  possession,  for  the 
Septuagint  never  renders  this  by  /.a-ua.  Others  inferred 
from  the  use  of  this  expression  that  the  Gospels  were  not 
written  by  the  persons  named,  but  were  shaped  after  the 
Gospel  as  they  preached  it.  But  on  this  interpretation  it 
seems  very  peculiar  that  the  second  and  third  Gospels  were 
not  called  xaxa  IHxpov  and  y-axa  HaiJXov,  seeing  that  they 
were  fashioned  after  their  type  of  preaching.  The  expres- 
sion must  be  explained  from  the  Church's  consciousness 
that  there  is  but  one  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  indicates 
that  in  these  writings  we  have  that  Gospel,  as  it  was  shaped 
(i.  e.  in  writing)  by  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear. 

That  the  early  Church  caught  the  idea  of  the  unity  of 
the  Gospel  is  quite  evident.  It  is  true,  the  plural  of 
euctYYeXtov  is  sometimes  employed,  but  the  singular  pre- 
vails. Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  the  Memoirs  that  are  called 
Gospels,  but  he  also  expresses  himself  thus :  "the  precepts 
in  what  is  called  the  Gospel,"  "it  is  written  in  the  Gospel." 
Irenaeus  in  one  of  his  writings  states  his  theme  as :  "The 
Gospel  is  essentially  fourfold."  Clement  of  Alexandria 
speaks  of  "the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Gospel,"  and 
Augustine,  of  "the  four  Gospels,  or  rather,  the  four  books 
of  the  one  Gospel." 

The  English  word  Gospel  is  derived  from  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  godspell,  composed  of  god^God  and  spel=story, 
thus  indicating  the  story  of  the  life  of  God  in  human  flesh. 
It  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  the  original  form  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  word  was  godspell,  from  gdd=good  and 
spel=story,  this  being  a  literal  translation  of  the  Greek 
eua-^fiXiow.  It  denotes  the  good  tidings  of  salvation  in 
Christ  for  a  perishing  world. 


28  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

THE  NUMBER  OF  THE  GOSPELS  RECOGNIZED 
BY  THE  EARLY  CHURCH. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  first  Christian  century  pro- 
duced many  Gospels  besides  those  which  are  included  in  our 
canon,  and  that  many  at  the  present  day  deny  the  authority 
of  some  or  all  of  our  Gospels,  it  is  important  to  know,  how 
many  the  early  Church  received  as  canonic.  The  apostolic 
fathers,  though  often  quoting  the  Gospels  do  not  mention 
their  authors,  nor  do  they  enumerate  them.  They  testify 
to  the  substance  and  canonicity  of  the  Gospels  therefore, 
but  not,  except  indirectly,  to  their  authenticity  and  number. 
In  all  probability  the  earliest  evidence  that  the  Church  of 
the  first  ages  accepted  the  four  Gospels  that  we  now  possess 
as  canonic,  is  furnished  by  the  Peshito,  which  most  likely 
dates  from  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  And  being 
a  translation,  it  points  to  the  fact  that  even  before  its  origin 
our  four  Gospels  were  received  into  the  canon,  while  all 
others  were  left  out.  Another  early  witness  is  found  in  the 
Muratorian  Fragment,  a  mutilated  work  of  which  the  real 
character  cannot  now  be  determined,  and  that  was  probably 
written  about  170  A.  D.  It  commences  with  the  last  words 
of  a  sentence  that  seemingly  belongs  to  a  description  of 
Mark's  Gospel,  and  then  tells  us  that  "Luke's  Gospel  stands 
third  in  order,  having  been  written  by  Luke,  the  physician, 
the  companion  of  Paul."  After  making  this  statement  it 
proceeds  to  assign  the  fourth  place  to  "the  Gospel  of  John, 
a  disciple  of  the  Lord."  The  conclusion  seems  perfectly 
warranted  that  the  first  two  Gospels,  of  which  the  descrip- 
tion is  lost,  are  those  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  An  important 
witness,  really  the  first  one  to  a  fourfold  Gospel,  i.  e.  to  a 
Gospel  that  is  four  and  yet  one,  is  Tatian,  the  Assyrian. 
His  Diatessaron  was  the  first  harmony  of  the  Gospels.  The 
exact  date  of  its  composition  is  not  known ;  the  meaning  of 
its  name  is  obviously  [the  Gospel]  by  the  Four.  This,  no 
doubt,  points  to  the  fact  that  it  was  based  on  four  Gospels, 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  29 

and  also  implies  that  these  four  were  our  canonical  Gospels, 
since  they  constituted  the  only  collection  in  existence  that 
needed  no  other  description  than  "the  Four."  The  testi- 
mony of  Eusebius  is  in  harmony  with  this,  when  he  says : 
"Tatian,  the  former  leader  of  the  Encratites,  having  put 
together  in  some  strange  fashion  a  combination  and  collec- 
tion of  the  Gospels,  gave  it  the  name  of  the  Diatessaron,  and 
the  work  is  still  partially  current."  Church  History,  IV,  2p. 
Very  important  testimony  to  our  four  Gospels  is  found  in 
the  writings  of  Irenaeus  (c.  120-200)  and  of  TertuUian 
(c.  150-130).  The  former  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who 
in  turn  had  enjoyed  the  personal  instruction  of  the  apostle 
John.  He  preached  the  Gospel  to  the  Gauls  and  in  178  suc- 
ceeded Pothinus  as  bishop  of  Lyons.  In  one  of  his  books 
he  has  a  long  chapter  entitled :  ''Proofs  that  there  can  he 
neither  more  nor  fewer  than  four  Evangelists."  Looking 
at  the  Gospels  as  a  unit,  he  called  them  "the  Gospel  with 
four  Faces."  And  he  searched  to  find  mystic  reasons  for 
this  quadruple  form,  thus  showing  how  strongly  he  and  his 
age  were  persuaded  that  there  were  but  four  canonical  Gos- 
pels. He  compares  the  quadriform  Gospel  (Texpapt-optpov) 
to  the  four  regions  of  the  earth,  to  the  four  universal  spirits, 
to  the  cherubim  with  four  faces,  etc.  The  testimony  of 
TertuUian  is  equally  explicit.  This  famous  church  father 
received  a  liberal  education  at  Rome,  lived  on  in  heathen 
darkness  until  about  his  thirtieth  or  fortieth  year,  when  he 
was  converted  and  entered  the  ministry.  Embittered  by  the 
treatment  he  received  at  the  hands  of  the  Church,  he  went 
into  the  fold  of  the  Montanists  about  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century.  He  wrote  numerous  works  in  defense  of 
the  Christian  religion.  In  his  work  against  Marcion  he  says, 
after  stating  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  had  been  maintained 
from  its  first  publication :  "The  same  authority  of  the  apos- 
tolic churches  will  uphold  the  other  Gospels  which  we  have 
in  due  succession  through  them  and  according  to  their  usage, 
I  mean  those  of  [the  apostles]  Matthew  and  John ;  although 


30  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

that  which  was  published  by  Mark  may  also  be  maintained 
to  be  Peter's,  whose  interpreter  Mark  was  :  for  the  narrative 
of  Luke  also  is  generally  ascribed  to  Paul :  since  it  is  allow- 
able that  that  which  scholars  publish  should  be  regarded  as 
their  master's  work."  Just  as  those  that  went  before  him 
Tertullian  appealed  to  the  testimony  of  antiquity  as  proving 
the  canonicity  of  our  four  Gospels  and  the  other  Scriptural 
books ;  and  his  appeal  was  never  gainsaid.  Another  signi- 
ficant testimony  is  that  of  Origin,  the  great  teacher  of  Alex- 
andria, of  whom  Eusebius  records  that  in  the  first  book  of 
his  commentaries  on  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  he  asserts  that 
he  knows  of  only  four  Gospels,  as  follows :  "I  have  learnt 
by  tradition  concerning  the  four  Gospels,  which  alone  are 
uncontroverted  in  the  Church  of  God  spread  under  heaven, 
that  according  to  Matthew,  who  was  once  a  publican  but 
afterwards  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  written  first; 
.  .  .  that  according  to  Mark  second ;  .  .  .  that  according  to 
Luke  third ;  .  .  .  that  according  to  John  last  of  all."  Church 
History  VI,  25.  Eusebius  himself,  who  was  the  first  his- 
torian of  the  Christian  Church,  in  giving  a  catalogue  of  the 
New  Testament  writings,  says :  "First  then  we  must  place 
the  holy  quaternion  of  the  Gospels." 

From  the  testimony  which  we  have  now  reviewed  the 
conclusion  seems  perfectly  warranted  that  the  Church  from 
the  earliest  times  knew  four  and  only  four  canonical  Gos- 
pels ;  and  that  these  four  are  the  same  that  she  has  recog- 
nized ever  since.  It  is  true  that  the  heretic  Marcion 
acknowledged  only  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  and  this  in  muti- 
lated form,  but  his  attitude  toward  the  Gospels  finds  a  ready 
explanation  in  his  dogmatic  bias. 

THE  LITERARY  CHARACTER  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

The  Gospels  have  a  literary  character  all  their  own ;  they 
are  siii  generis.  There  is  not  another  book  or  group  of  books 
in  the  Bible  to  which  they  can  be  compared.  They  are  four 
and  yet  one  in  a  very  essential  sense;  they  express  four 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  31 

sides  of  the  one  suocYYsXtov  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  studying 
them  the  question  naturally  arises,  how  we  must  conceive 
of  them.  Now  we  need  not  argue  that  they  are  not  mere 
collections  of  myths  and  fables,  with  or  without  a  historical 
basis,  as  many  Rationalists  would  have  us  believe.  Nor  is 
it  necessary  to  show  at  length  that  they  are  not  four  bi- 
ographies of  Jesus.  If  their  authors  intended  them  to  be 
such,  they  would  be  very  disappointing  indeed.  There  is, 
however,  another  misconception  against  which  we  must 
warn,  because  it  is  quite  prevalent  in  the  circles  of  those 
who  accept  these  writings  unquestionably  as  a  part  of  the 
Word  of  God,  and  since  it  is  a  positive  hindrance  to  a  true 
understanding  of  these  priceless  records.  We  refer  to  the 
conviction  that  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  were  minded  to 
prepare  for  following  generations  more  or  less  complete 
histories  of  the  life  of  Christ.  In  reading  these  writings  we 
soon  find  that,  looked  at  as  histories,  they  leave  a  great  deal 
to  be  desired.  In  the  first  place  they  tell  us  comparatively 
little  of  that  rich  and  varied  life  of  Christ,  of  which  they 
knew  so  much,  Cf.  John  20:30;  21:25.  The  historical 
facts  narrated  by  John  f .  i.  only  represent  the  work  of  a  few 
days.  His  Gospel  would  thus  be  a  life  of  Jesus  with  yawn- 
ing gaps.  The  same  is  true  of  the  other  Gospels.  In  the 
second  place  the  materials,  except  those  at  the  beginning 
and  at  the  end  of  Christ's  life,  are  not  arranged  in  chrono- 
logical order.  Any  possible  doubt  that  we  may  have  on  this 
point  is  soon  dispelled,  when  we  compare  the  Gospels.  The 
same  facts  are  often  narrated  in  altogether  different  con- 
nections. Closely  allied  with  this  is  a  third  feature  that 
deserves  attention.  The  casual  relation  of  the  important 
events  that  are  narrated  is  not  traced,  except  in  a  few  in- 
stances, and  yet  this  is  just  what  one  expects  in  histories. 
And  finally  if  they  were  really  meant  to  be  histories,  why 
was  it  necessary  that  we  should  have  four  of  them  ? 

The  harmonists  generally  proceeded  on  the  erroneous 
conception  to  which  we  refer.    They  were  aware  indeed  that 


32  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

there  were  great  lacunae  in  all  the  Gospels,  but  thought  they 
might  remedy  matters  by  supplying  from  one  Gospel  what 
was  wanting  in  the  other.  Thus  the  relation  of  the  Gospels 
to  one  another  was  conceived  of  as  supplemental.  But  their 
work  was  doomed  to  failure ;  it  did  violence  to  the  exquisite 
compositions  on  which  they  operated,  and  marred  the  char- 
acteristic beauty  of  those  literary  productions.  They  were 
always  uncertain  as  to  the  true  order  of  events,  and  did  not 
know  which  one  of  the  evangelists  was  the  best  chronological 
guide.  Some  preferred  Matthew,  others  chose  Mark,  and 
still  others  followed  Luke.  And  after  all  their  efforts  to 
combine  the  four  Gospels  into  one  continuous  narrative  with 
the  facts  arranged  in  the  exact  order  in  which  they  occurred, 
their  work  must  be  pronounced  a  failure.  The  Gospels  are 
not  histories  of  the  life  of  Christ,  nor  do  they,  taken  to- 
gether, form  one  history. 

But  what  are  they,  if  they  are  neither  biographies  nor 
histories?  They  are  four  pen-pictures,  or  better,  a  four- 
fold portraiture  of  the  Saviour;  a  fourfold  representation 
of  the  apostolic  x-^puYixa;  a  fourfold  witness  regarding  our 
Lord.  It  is  said  that  the  great  artist  Van  Dyke  prepared  a 
threefold  portrait  of  Charles  I  for  the  sculptor,  that  the  lat- 
ter might  fashion  an  absolutely  faithful  likeness  of  the  king. 
These  three  portraits  were  necessary ;  their  differences  and 
agreements  were  all  required  to  give  a  true  representation 
of  the  monarch.  So  it  is  in  the  case  of  the  Gospels.  Each 
one  of  them  gives  us  a  certain  view  of  the  Lord,  and  only 
the  four  taken  together  present  to  us  his  perfect  likeness, 
revealing  him  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  The  apostolic 
/.•^puyiAa  had  taken  a  wide  flight.  Its  central  content  was  the 
cross  and  the  resurrection.  But  in  connection  with  this  the 
words  and  deeds  of  the  Saviour  and  his  history  also  formed 
the  subject  of  the  apostles'  preaching.  And  when  this  apos- 
tolic v.'f\p\jy\i(X  was  reduced  to  writing,  it  was  found  neces- 
sary to  give  it  a  fourfold  form,  that  it  might  answer  to  the 
needs  of  four  classes  of  people,  viz.  to  those  of  the  Jews, 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  33 

to  those  of  the  Romans,  to  those  of  the  Greeks,  and  to  those 
of  the  people  who  confessed  Christ  as  Lord ;  needs  that  were 
typical  of  the  spiritual  requirements  of  all  future  ages. 
Matthew  wrote  for  the  Jews  and  characterized  Christ  as 
the  great  King  of  the  house  of  David.  Mark  composed  his 
Gospel  for  the  Romans  and  pictured  the  Saviour  as  the 
mighty  Worker,  triumphing  over  sin  and  evil.  Luke  in 
writing  his  Gospel  had  in  mind  the  needs  of  the  Greeks  and 
portrayed  Christ  as  the  perfect  man,  the  universal  Saviour. 
And  John,  composing  his  Gospel  for  those  who  already  had 
a  saving  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  stood  in  need  of  a  more 
profound  understanding  of  the  essential  character  of  Jesus, 
emphasized  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  glory  that  was  mani- 
fested in  his  works.  Each  Gospel  is  complete  in  itself  and 
acquaints  us  with  a  certain  aspect  of  the  Lord's  life.  Yet 
it  is  only  the  fourfold  Gospel  that  furnishes  us  with  a  com- 
plete, a  perfect  image  of  him  whom  to  know  is  life  eternal. 
And  it  is  only,  when  we  grasp  the  different  features  that  are 
mirrored  in  the  Gospels  and  see  how  they  blend  harmoni- 
ously in  that  noblest  of  all  lives,  the  life  of  Christ,  that  we 
have  found  the  true  harmony  of  the  Gospels. 

THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM. 

The  first  three  Gospels  are  known  as  the  Synoptics,  and 
their  authors  are  called  the  Synoptists.  The  name  is  derived 
from  the  Greek  auv  and  o^tq,  and  is  applied  to  these  Gos- 
pels, since  they,  as  distinguished  from  the  fourth,  give  us 
a  common  view  of  the  life  of  our  Lord.  But  notwithstand- 
ing the  great  similarity  by  which  these  Gospels  are  charac- 
terized, they  also  reveal  very  striking  differences.  This 
remarkable  agreement  on  the  one  hand,  and  these  manifest 
dissimilarities  on  the  other,  constitute  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult literary  problems  of  the  New  Testament.  The  question 
is,  whether  we  can  account  for  the  origin  of  these  Gospels 
in  such  a  manner  that  we  can  explain  both  the  close  re- 
semblances and  the  often  surprising  differences. 

In  the  first  place  the  general  plan  of  these  Gospels  ex- 


34  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

hibits  a  remarkable  agreement.  Only  Matthew  and  Luke 
contain  a  narrative  of  the  infancy  of  our  Lord  and  their 
accounts  of  it  are  quite  distinct ;  but  the  history  of  Christ's 
public  ministry  follows  very  much  the  same  order  in  all  the 
Synoptics.  They  treat  successively  of  the  Lord's  prepara- 
tion for  the  ministry,  John  the  Baptist,  the  baptism,  the 
temptation,  the  return  to  Galilee,  the  preaching  in  its  villages 
and  cities,  the  journey  to  Jerusalem,  the  entrance  into  the 
Holy  City,  the  preaching  there,  the  passion  and  the  resur- 
rection. The  details  that  fit  into  this  general  plan  are  also 
arranged  in  quite  a  uniform  manner,  except  in  some  places, 
especially  of  the  first  Gospel.  The  most  striking  differences 
in  the  arrangement  of  the  material  results  from  the  narrative 
of  a  long  series  of  events  connected  with  the  Galilean  minis- 
try, which  is  peculiar  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  Matt.  14 :  22 — 
16:12;  Mark  6 :  45 — 8 :  26 ;  and  from  the  history  of  another 
series  of  events  related  to  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  that  is 
found  only  in  Luke  9:  51 — 18:  14. 

But  there  is  not  only  similarity  in  the  broad  outlines  of 
those  Gospels ;  the  particular  incidents  that  are  narrated  are 
also  in  many  cases  the  same  in  substance  and  similar  if  not 
identical  in  form.  The  amount  of  agreement  that  we  find 
in  this  respect  is  represented  by  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  p.  272,  and  by  Westcott,  Introduction  to  the  Study 
of  the  Gospels  p.  20 1,  in  the  following  manner :  If  the  total 
contents  of  the  Gospel  is  represented  by  100,  the  follow- 
ing result  is  obtained : 

Mark  has 7  peculiarities  and — 93  coincidences 

Matthew  has 42  peculiarities  and — 58  coincidences 

Luke  has 59  peculiarities  and — 41  coincidences 

If  the  extent  of  all  the  coincidences  be  represented  by 
100  their  proportionate  distribution  will  be : 

Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke 53 

Matthew  and  Luke 21 

Matthew  and  Mark 20 

Mark  and  Luke 6 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  35 

Still  another  estimate,  viz.  that  by  verses,  is  suggested 
by  Reuss,  History  of  the  New  Testament,  I  p.  177: 
Matthew  out  of  a  total  of  971  verses  has  330  peculiar  to  him. 
Mark  out  of  a  total  of  478  verses  has  68  peculiar  to  him. 
Luke  out  of  a  total  of  1151  verses  has  541  pecuHar  to  him. 

The  first  two  have  170  to  180  verses  that  are  lacking  in 
Luke ;  Matthew  and  Luke,  230  to  240  wanting  in  Mark ; 
Mark  and  Luke  about  50  wanting  in  Matthew.  The  number 
common  to  all  three  is  330  to  370. 

The  preceding  statements  refer  to  the  subject-matter  of 
the  Synoptics.  Taken  by  itself  this  might  give  us  an  exag- 
gerated idea  of  the  similarity  of  these  Gospels.  As  a  cor- 
rective it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  verbal  coinci- 
dences, though  they  are  remarkable  indeed,  are  nevertheless 
considerably  less  than  one  would  expect.  Dr.  Schaff  and  his 
son,  after  some  calculations  based  on  Rushbrooke's  Synop- 
ticon,  get  the  following  results  : 

"The  proportion  of  words  peculiar  to  the  Synoptics  is 
28,000  out  of  48,000,  more  than  one-half. 

In  Matthew  56  words  out  of  every  100  are  peculiar. 

In  Mark  40  words  out  of  every  100  are  peculiar. 

In  Luke  67  words  out  of  every  100  are  peculiar. 

The  number  of  coincidences  common  to  all  three  is  less 
than  the  number  of  divergences. 
Matthew  agrees  with  the  other  two  gospels  in  1  word  out 

of  7. 
Mark  agrees  with  the  other  two  gospels  in  1  word  out  of  4^. 
Luke  agrees  with  the  other  two  gospels  in  1  word  out  of  8. 

But  comparing  the  Gospels  two  by  two,  it  is  evident  that 
Matthew  and  Mark  have  most  in  common,  and  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  most  divergent. 

One-half  of  Mark  is  found  in  Matthew. 

One-fourth  of  Luke  is  found  in  Matthew. 

One-third  of  Mark  is  found  in  Luke. 

The  general  conclusion  from  these  figures  is  that  all 
three  Gospels  widely  diverge  from  the  common  matter,  or 
triple  tradition,  Mark  the  least  so  and  Luke  the  most  (al- 


36  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

most  twice  as  much  as  Mark).  On  the  other  hand,  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  nearer  Mark  than  Luke  and 
Matthew  to  each  other."    Church  History,  I  p.  597. 

In  connection  with  the  preceding  we  should  bear  in  mind 
that  these  verbal  agreements  are  greatest,  not  in  the  nar- 
rative, but  in  the  recitative  parts  of  the  Gospels.  About  one- 
fifth  of  them  is  found  in  the  narrative  portion  of  the  Gospel, 
and  four-fifths  in  the  recital  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  and 
others.  This  statement  will  create  a  false  impression,  how- 
ever, unless  we  bear  in  mind  the  proportion  in  which  the 
narrative  parts  stand  to  the  recitative  element,  which  is  as 
follows :  Narrative  Recitative 

Matthew 25  75 

Mark    50  50 

Luke  34  66 

From  what  has  nov/  been  said  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
the  Synoptics  present  an  intricate  literary  problem.  Is  it 
possible  to  explain  their  origin  in  such  a  manner  that  both 
the  resemblances  and  the  differences  are  accounted  for? 
During  the  last  century  many  scholars  have  applied  them- 
selves with  painstaking  diligence  to  the  arduous  task  of 
solving  this  problem.  The  solution  has  been  sought  along 
different  lines ;  several  hypotheses  have  been  broached,  of 
which  we  shall  name  only  the  four  most  important  ones. 

In  the  first  place  there  is  what  has  been  called  (though 
not   altogether   correctly)    the   mutual   dependence   theory 
{Beniitzungshypothese,  Augustine,   Bengel,  Bleek,  Storr). 
According  to  this  theory  the  one  Gospel  is  dependent  on  the 
other,  so  that  the  second  borrowed  from  the  first  and  the 
third  from  both  the  first  and  the  second.     On  this  theory, 
of  course,  six  permutations  are  possible  viz. : 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke. 
Matthew,  Luke,  Mark. 
Mark,  Matthew,  Luke. 
Mark,  Luke,  Matthew. 
Luke,  Matthew,  Mark. 
Luke,  Mark,  Matthew. 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  37 

In  every  possible  form  this  theory  has  found  defenders, 
but  it  does  not  meet  with  great  favor  at  present.  True,  it 
seems  to  account  for  the  general  agreement  in  a  very  simple 
manner,  but  serious  difficulties  arise,  when  one  seeks  to  deter- 
mine which  one  of  the  Gospels  was  first,  which  second  and 
which  third.  This  is  perfectly  evident  from  the  difference 
of  opinion  among  the  adherents  of  this  hypothesis.  Again 
it  fails  to  account  for  the  divergencies ;  it  does  not  explain 
why  one  writer  adopts  the  language  of  his  predecessor (s) 
up  to  a  certain  point,  and  then  suddenly  abandons  it.  Of 
late  it  is  tacitly  admitted,  however,  that  it  does  contain  an 
element  of  truth. 

In  the  second  place  the  hypothesis  of  oral  tradition 
(Traditiofis-hypothese,  Gieseler,  Westcott,  Wright),  should 
be  mentioned.  This  theory  starts  from  the  supposition  that 
the  Gospel  existed  first  of  all  in  an  unwritten  form.  It  is 
assumed  that  the  apostles  repeatedly  told  the  story  of 
Christ's  life,  dwelling  especially  on  the  most  important  inci- 
dents of  his  career,  and  often  reiterating  the  very  words  of 
their  blessed  Lord.  These  narratives  and  words  were 
eagerly  caught  up  by  willing  ears  and  treasured  in  faithful 
and  retentive  memories,  the  Jews  making  it  a  practice  to 
retain  whatever  they  learnt  in  the  exact  form  in  which  they 
received  it.  Thus  a  stereotyped  tradition  arose  which  served 
as  the  basis  for  our  present  Gospels.  Several  objections 
have  been  urged  against  this  theory.  It  is  said  that,  as  a 
result  of  the  apostles'  preaching  in  the  vernacular,  the  oral 
tradition  was  embodied  in  the  Aramaic  language,  and  hence 
cannot  account  for  the  verbal  coincidences  in  the  Greek 
Gospels.  Again  it  is  urged  that  the  more  stereotyped  the 
tradition  was,  the  harder  it  becomes  to  account  for  the 
differences  between  the  Synoptics.  Would  anyone  be  apt 
to  alter  such  a  tradition  on  his  own  authority?  Moreover 
this  hypothesis  offers  no  explanation  of  the  existence  of  the 
two-fold,  the  triple  and  the  double  tradition,  i.  e.  the  tradi- 
tion that  is  embodied  in  all  three  of  the  Gospels  and  that 


38  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

which  is  found  only  in  two  of  them.  The  majority  of 
scholars  have  now  abandoned  this  theory,  although  it  has 
ardent  defenders  even  at  present.  And  no  doubt,  it  must  be 
taken  into  account  in  the  solution  of  this  problem. 

In  the  third  place  we  have  the  hypothesis  of  one  primi- 
tive Gospel  (Urevangeliums-hypothese),  from  which  all 
three  of  the  Synoptists  drew  their  material.  According  to 
G.  E.  Lessing  this  Gospel,  containing  a  short  account  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  for  the  use  of  traveling  missionaries,  was  writ- 
ten in  the  popular  language  of  Palestine.  Eichhorn,  how- 
ever, following  him,  held  that  it  was  translated  into  Greek, 
worked  over  and  enriched  in  various  ways,  and  soon  took 
shape  in  several  redactions,  which  became  the  source  of  our 
present  Gospels.  There  is  very  little  agreement  among  the 
defenders  of  this  theory  regarding  the  exact  character  of 
this  original  source.  At  present  it  finds  little  favor  in  scien- 
tific circles,  but  has  been  discarded  for  various  reasons. 
There  is  absolutely  no  trace  of  such  an  original  Gospel,  nor 
any  historical  reference  to  it,  which  seems  peculiar  in  view 
of  its  unique  significance.  And  if  the  existence  of  such  a 
source  be  postulated,  how  must  the  arbitrary  alteration  of 
it  be  explained,  how  did  these  different  recensions  come  into 
existence.  It  is  evident  that  by  this  theory  the  problem  is 
not  solved,  but  simply  shifted  to  another  place.  Moreover 
while  in  its  original  form  this  hypothesis  accounted  very  well 
for  the  agreement,  but  not  for  the  dififerences  found  in  the 
Synoptics,  in  its  final  form  it  was  too  artificial  and  too  com- 
plicated to  inspire  confidence  and  to  seem  anything  like  a 
natural  solution  of  the  Synoptic  problem. 

In  the  fourth  place  the  so-called  double  source,  or  two 
document  theory  {Comhinations-hypo these,  Weisse,  Wilke, 
Holtzmann,  Wendt)  deserves  mention,  since  it  is  the  favorite 
theory  of  New  Testament  scholars  today.  This  hypothesis 
holds  that,  in  order  to  explain  the  phenomena  of  the  Gospels, 
it  is  necessary  to  postulate  the  existence  of  at  least  two 
primitive  documents,  and  recognizes  the  use  of  one  Gospel 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  39 

in  the  composition  of  the  others.  The  form  in  which  this 
theory  is  most  widely  accepted  at  present  is  the  following: 
The  Gospel  of  Mark  was  the  first  one  to  be  written  and, 
either  in  the  form  in  which  we  now  have  it,  or  in  a  slightly 
different  form  was  the  source  of  the  triple  tradition.  For 
the  double  tradition,  which  is  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke, 
these  writers  used  a  second  source  that,  for  want  of  definite 
knowledge  regarding  it,  is  simply  called  Q  (from  the  Ger- 
man Quelle).  This  Q  may  have  been  the  Xo^ia  of  Matthew 
mentioned  by  Papias,  and  was  probably  a  collection  of  the 
sayings  of  our  Lord.  The  differences  between  Matthew 
and  Luke  in  the  matter  of  the  double  tradition  finds  its 
explanation  in  the  assumption  that,  while  Matthew  drew 
directly  from  Q,  Luke  derived  the  corresponding  matter 
from  Q  and  other  sources,  or  from  a  primitive  Gospel  based 
on  Q.  On  the  last  supposition  the  relation  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  to  Q  would  be  as  follows : 


Luke  Matthew 


But  even  so  the  use  of  some  inferior  sources  by  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  must  be  assumed.  The  double  source 
theory  presupposes  the  existence  of  a  rather  large  pre- 
canonical  literature. 

There  are  some  evident  objections  to  this  theory  also. 
The  assumption  that  the  'kb-^icc  of  Matthew  was  anything 
else  than  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  original  of  our  Greek 
Matthew  is  a  baseless  supposition ;  it  has  no  historical  foun- 
dation whatever.  Furthermore  the  theory  offers  no  explan- 
ation of  the  fact  that  the  writers  in  some  cases  faithfully 
copied  their  original  and  in  others  altered  the  text  rather 
freely  or  even  departed  from  it  entirely.  And  by  postulat- 
ing the  development  of  a  somewhat  extensive  Gospel  litera- 
ture previous  to  the  composition  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  it 


40  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

has  naturally  led  to  the  position  that  our  Gospels  were  writ- 
ten late,  and  therefore  in  all  probability  not  by  their  reputed 
authors.  Moreover  it  also  requires  us  to  believe  that  Luke 
included  the  Gospel  of  Mark  in  the  number  of  the  attempted 
Gospel  stories  which  his  Gospel  was  meant  to  supercede. 

None  of  the  theories  broached  up  to  the  present  time 
has  proved  satisfactory.  There  is  still  a  great  deal  of  un- 
certainty and  confusion  in  the  study  of  the  Synoptic  prob- 
lem ;  we  do  not  seem  to  be  nearer  to  its  solution  now  than  we 
were  fifty  years  ago.  The  great  aim  has  always  been  to  ex- 
plain the  origin  of  the  Synoptics  without  taking  into  account 
the  supernatural  factor  that  entered  into  their  composition. 
Now  we  do  not  doubt  the  value  of  these  studies ;  they  have 
already  taught  us  a  good  many  things  regarding  the  origin 
of  these  Gospels ;  but  they  have  proven  themselves  insuffi- 
cient to  lead  to  a  final  solution  of  the  problem.  It  is,  of 
course,  folly  to  rule  this  problem  out  of  existence  by  simply 
appealing  to  the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
is  true,  if  one  believes  in  the  mechanical  inspiration  of  the 
Bible,  there  is  no  Synoptic  problem.  This  is  quite  different, 
however,  for  those  who  believe  that  the  Scriptures  have  been 
inspired  in  an  organic  way.  The  more  naturally  we  conceive 
of  the  origin  of  these  writings,  the  better  it  is,  if  we  only  do 
not  lose  sight  of  the  operation  of  the  divine  factor,  of  the 
directing,  the  guiding  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Cf. 
Kuyper,  Encyclopedie  HI  p.  51  f.  It  is  hardly  sufficient  to 
say  with  Urquhart,  New  Biblical  Guide  VII  p.  357,  that  the 
key  to  the  problem  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  are  all  the  work  of  one  author,  and  that  each  book 
is  serving  a  distinct  purpose.  Yet  this  statement  contains 
two  important  truths  that  we  should  continually  bear  in 
mind. 

In  any  attempt  to  account  for  the  similarities  of  the 
Synoptics  great  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  influence 
of  oral  tradition.  It  is  very  natural  to  suppose  that,  since 
the  apostles  for  some  time  labored  together  at  Jerusalem 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  41 

with  Peter  at  the  head,  a  particular,  perhaps  Petrine  type 
of  tradition  became  the  common  property  of  these  early 
preachers  and  of  their  first  hearers.  And  because  the  life 
of  Christ  entered  as  a  very  important  element  into  the  life 
of  his  apostles,  and  they  felt  the  supreme  significance  of  his 
words,  it  is  also  reasonable  to  assume  that  they  aimed  at 
inculcating  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  on  their  hearers  in  the 
exact  form  in  which  He  gave  it.  It  is  equally  rational  to 
suppose  that,  at  a  comparatively  early  time,  the  desire  to 
escape  the  uncertainty  that  always  attends  oral  transmission, 
led  to  the  composition  of  brief  gospel  narratives,  containing 
especially  the  sayings  and  discourses  of  our  Lord.  These 
suppositions  are  entirely  in  harmony  too  with  the  opening 
verses  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke :  "Forasmuch  as  many  have 
taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning  those  mat- 
ters which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us,  even  as  they  deli- 
vered them  unto  us,  who  from  the  beginning  were  eyewit- 
nesses and  ministers  of  the  word,  it  seemed  good  to  me  also, 
etc."  Some  of  these  early  documents  may  have  been  written 
in  Aramaic  and  others  in  Greek.  The  groundwork  thus 
furnished  and  drawn  upon  by  the  writers  of  our  Gospels, 
explains  in  a  very  natural  way  most  of  the  agreements  that 
are  found  in  the  Synoptics.  And  those  that  cannot  be  ac- 
counted for  in  that  manner  may  have  resulted  directly  from 
the  guiding  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  led  the  writers 
also  in  the  choice  of  their  words.  These  three  Gospels  are 
in  a  very  real  sense  the  work  of  one  Author. 

In  seeking  to  explain  the  differences  that  are  found  in 
the  Synoptical  Gospels,  we  should  bear  in  mind  first  of  all 
that  they  are  no  histories,  but  memoirs,  historical  arguments. 
In  composing  them  each  one  of  the  writers  had  his  own  pur- 
pose. Matthew,  writing  for  the  Jews,  made  it  his  aim  to 
present  Christ  as  the  King,  the  great  Son  of  David ;  Mark, 
intending  his  Gospel  for  the  Romans,  endeavored  to  draw 
a  vivid  picture  of  the  powerful  Worker,  conquering  the 
forces  of  evil;  and  Luke,  addressing  the  Greeks  and  adjust- 


42  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

ing  his  Gospel  to  their  needs,  sought  to  describe  Christ  as 
the  universal  Saviour,  as  a  person  with  wide  sympathies. 
This  diversity  of  aim  accounts  to  a  great  extent  for  the 
variations  exhibited  in  the  Gospels,  i.  e.  for  omissions  on  the 
one  hand  and  additions  on  the  other,  for  differences  in  the 
distribution  and  arrangement  of  the  material,  etc.  The  writ- 
ers of  the  Gospels  selected  from  the  great  mass  of  early 
traditions  the  material  that  was  suited  to  their  purpose  and 
used  it  to  advantage.  The  difference  between  the  Synoptics 
is  not  accidental,  is  not  the  result  of  the  chance  use  of  certain 
sources.  And  where  the  identical  teachings  of  Christ  are 
sometimes  found  in  different  forms,  we  should  remember, 
first,  that  the  Lord  may  have  uttered  the  same  truth  at 
different  times  in  varying  forms;  and  secondly,  that  the 
Synoptists  do  not  always  give  the  identical  words  of  the 
Saviour,  but  were  so  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  that  they  do 
give  an  exact  representation  of  the  Lord's  teachings,  perhaps 
in  a  form  better  adapted  to  their  purpose  than  the  original 
would  have  been.  Cf.  Kuyper,  Diet.  Dogm.,  Locus  de  Sacra 
Scriptura  II  p.  131  f. ;  Gregory,  Why  Four  Gospels;  Van 
Leeuwen,  Literatuur  en  Schriftuur  p.  14  ff . ;  Urquhart,  New 
Biblical  Guide  VII  p.  328-428. 

For  further  study  of  the  Synoptic  Problem  we  refer  to : 
Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels;  Westcott,  Introduction 
to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels;  Arthur  Wright,  A  Synopsis  of 
the  Gospels  in  Greek;  Holdsworth,  Gospel  Origins;  Buck- 
ley, Introduction  to  the  Synoptic  Problem;  Hill,  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Life  of  Christ;  Reuss,  History  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment I  p.  163-218  (where  the  most  important  German  litera- 
ture is  referred  to)  ;  and  the  various  Introductions  of  David- 
son, Weiss,  Zahn,  Jiilicher,  Salmon,  e.  a. 

THE  RELATION  OF  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  TO 

THE  SYNOPTICS. 

After  pointing  out  the  remarkable  agreement  between 
the  synoptic  Gospels  and  referring  to  some  of  the  attempted 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  43 

explanations  of  this  feature,  we  must  consider  the  equally 
striking  difference  that  exists  between  the  Synoptics  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  Gospel  of  John  on  the  other.  This  differ- 
ence is  so  great  that  even  untrained  minds  immediately  feel 
it.  Hence  the  question  naturally  arises :  How  can  we  ac- 
count for  it?  This  is  in  substance  the  Johannine  problem. 
The  differences  that  are  found  may  conveniently  be 
arranged  under  two  heads:  1.  Differences  touching  the 
external  course  of  events  in  the  Lord's  ministry ;  and  2. 
Differences  in  regard  to  the  form  and  contents  of  Christ's 
teaching. 

/.  Differences  touching  the  external  course  of  events 
in  the  Lord's  ministry. 

a.  According  to  the  Synoptics  the  principal  scene  of  the 
Lord's  activity  is  Galilee.  He  repairs  to  this  Northern  prov- 
ince soon  after  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
apparently  does  not  return  to  Judea  until  the  last  Passover. 
The  representation  that  is  found  in  the  Gospel  of  John  is 
quite  different.  Very  little  is  said  about  the  Galilean  minis- 
try, while  the  activity  of  Christ  in  Judea  looms  large  on  his 
pages.  Most  of  the  work  of  which  John  speaks  was  done 
at  Jerusalem. 

b.  The  first  three  Gospels  mention  but  one  Passover  in 
their  narrative  of  Christ's  public  ministry,  viz.  that  at  the 
end  of  his  life.  This  led  many  to  the  conviction  that  the 
Lord's  public  ministry  was  limited  to  a  period  of  one  year. 
In  the  Gospel  of  John,  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  three  Pass- 
overs definitely  mentioned,  while  a  fourth  is  probably  re- 
ferred to  in  5:1.  Judging  by  this  the  length  of  the  Lord's 
ministry  was  at  least  two  and  possibly  three  years. 

c.  The  people  with  whom  Jesus  deals  primarily  are  not 
the  same  in  the  Synoptics  and  in  the  Gospel  of  John.  In  the 
first  three  Gospels  we  see  Jesus  moving  along  the  Galilean 
peasantry  and  preaching  to  them  the  gospel  of  the  Kingdom, 
while  in  the  fourth  the  Jews  (by  which  John  means  the  lead- 
ers of  the  people,  i.  e.  Chief  Priests,  Scribes  and  Pharisees) 


44  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

are  generally  in  the  foreground,  and  certain  individuals,  that 
are  not  named,  or  are  merely  names,  in  the  Synoptics,  are 
very  prominent,  such  as  Philip,  Nathanael,  the  Samaritan 
woman,  Mary  Magdalena  and  Thomas. 

d.  The  attitude  of  the  Jews  towards  Jesus  appears  to 
be  quite  different  in  the  synoptic  Gospels  and  in  the  Gospel 
of  John.  According  to  the  Synoptics  Jesus  meets  with  great 
success  at  first.  The  multitudes  flock  unto  him,  are  delighted 
to  hear  him  and  marvel  at  his  teachings  and  work.  And  it 
is  only  after  He  has  clearly  shown  that  He  had  not  come  to 
establish  an  earthly  kingdom  that  their  enthusiasm  dies 
away,  and  that  He  begins  to  prepare  his  disciples  for  his 
coming  suffering  and  death.  The  Gospel  of  John  makes  it 
appear  that  from  the  beginning  of  Christ's  ministry  at  Jeru- 
salem the  hearts  of  the  Jews  were  filled  with  a  hatred  that 
gradually  grew,  reaching  its  highest  pitch  after  the  raising 
of  Lazarus,  and  that  finally  issued  in  the  crucifixion  of  the 
Lord  of  glory. 

e.  There  are  also  several  details  in  which  the  Gospel  of 
John  does  not  agree  with  the  Synoptics.  We  shall  only  men- 
tion a  couple  of  the  most  important  examples.  In  the  synop- 
tic Gospels  we  find  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  at  the  end  of 
Christ's  public  ministry,  while  John  places  this  at  the  very 
beginning.  Then  there  is  also  a  difference  in  the  representa- 
tion of  the  time  of  the  Lord's  death.  The  Synoptics  convey 
the  impression  that  Christ  ate  the  Passover  in  the  evening 
of  the  14th  of  Nisan,  and  was  therefore  crucified  on  the 
15th;  while  the  Gospel  of  John  seems  to  say  with  equal 
explicitness  that  He  ate  it  a  day  in  advance  of  the  regular 
time  and  died  at  the  very  hour,  when  the  symbolic  Paschal 
lamb  was  slain. 

//.  Differences  in  respect  to  the  form  and  contents  of 
our  Lord's  teaching. 

a.  There  is  a  striking  diversity  in  the  form  in  which 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  cast.  In  the  Synoptics  we  have  short 
incisive  sayings  of  the  Lord,  which  in  some  cases  are  and  in 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  45 

others  are  not  connected  with  what  immediately  precedes  or 
follows.  In  the  Gospel  of  John,  on  the  other  hand,  we  find 
long  and  labored  discourses,  closely  connected  with  the  signs, 
the  miracles  of  our  Lord.  The  first  three  Gospels  contain  a 
goodly  number  of  parables,  which  are  strangely  absent  from 
the  fourth  Gospel,  where  we  have  instead  a  few  allegories, 
such  as  the  Door  of  the  Sheepfold,  the  good  Shepherd,  and 
the  true  Vine.  The  style  of  the  Gospel  of  John  too  is  quite 
different  from  that  of  the  Synoptics.  It  is  a  more  Hebraic 
style,  in  which  the  statements  are  brief,  the  construction  is 
simple  and  the  sentences  are  usually  connected  with  the 
conjunction  and.  This  style  is  carried  through  also  in  the 
discourses  of  Christ,  so  that  in  some  cases  it  is  very  hard,  if 
not  impossible,  to  tell  just  where  the  words  of  the  Lord 
come  to  an  end  and  those  of  the  evangelist  begin,  or  vice 
versa.     Notice  this  especially  in  the  third  chapter. 

b.  There  is  an  equally  great  difference  in  the  contents 
of  the  Lord's  teaching.  In  the  Synoptics  the  central  theme 
on  which  Christ  dwells  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  He  speaks 
of  its  origin,  its  nature,  its  subjects,  its  King,  its  require- 
ments, its  righteousness,  its  enemies  and  its  future  glory. 
In  vain  do  we  turn  to  the  fourth  Gospel  for  a  corresponding 
line  of  thought.  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  mentioned  but 
once  there,  viz.  in  the  conversation  of  our  Lord  with  Nico- 
demus.  Christ  himself  is  the  main  theme  of  the  discourses 
found  in  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  Lord  speaks  of  his 
heavenly  origin,  of  his  essential  character  and  of  his  return 
to  glory.  He  presents  himself  to  the  Jews  as  the  Messiah, 
the  Son  of  God,  the  heavenly  manna,  the  water  of  life,  the 
true  liberator,  the  light  of  the  world,  the  good  Shepherd,  the 
resurrection  and  the  life,  etc.  In  the  Synoptics  we  find  that 
Jesus  only  occasionally,  and  then  towards  the  end  of  his 
ministry,  speaks  of  himself.  In  connection  with  this  we  may 
remark  that  the  self-revelation  of  Christ  both  by  his  words 
and  works  differs  greatly  in  the  Synoptics  and  in  the  fourth 
Gospel.     In  the  former  Jesus  begins  by  speaking  of  the 


46  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 


Kingdom  and  makes  little  mention  of  the  King.  Only  grad- 
ually does  He  reveal  his  true  character  and  it  is  not  until 
He  is  well  along  in  the  course  of  his  public  ministry  that 
Peter  is  led  up  to  the  confession :  "Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God."  Only  in  the  last  week  of  his 
life  does  Jesus  throw  off  all  reserve  and  speaks  clearly  of 
himself  as  the  Messiah  sent  from  God.  In  the  Gospel  of 
John,  however,  everything  is  quite  clear  from  the  beginning. 
John  the  Baptist  points  to  Christ  as  "the  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ;"  to  the  Samaritan  woman 
Jesus  says :  "I  am  He ;"  and  to  the  Jews  attending  the 
unnamed  feast  he  speaks  clearly  of  the  unique  relation  in 
which  He  stands  to  the  Father.  This  is  closely  connected 
with  another  fact.  In  the  synoptic  Gospels  the  humanity 
of  Christ  is  made  very  prominent.  We  behold  him  there 
primarily  as  the  Saviour  who  has  taken  on  our  nature, 
shares  in  our  infirmities,  and  is  tempted  even  as  we  are, 
though  without  sin.  The  fourth  Gospel,  on  the  other  hand, 
brings  the  divinity  of  Christ  into  strong  relief.  We  notice 
this  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Gospel:  "In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word 
was  God."  It  strikes  us  in  the  signs  which  Christ  gave  to 
reveal  his  glory,  and  in  the  discourses  that  speak  at  length 
of  his  essential  nature,  of  his  descending  out  of  glory,  his 
being  in  glory,  and  his  returning  to  the  glory  that  He  pos- 
sessed from  the  foundation  of  the  world ;  and  it  rings  in  our 
ears  as  we  listen  to  the  confession  of  Thomas :  "My  Lord 
and  my  God." 

There  are  many  critics  at  the  present  time  who  magnify 
these  differences  into  discrepancies,  and  find  in  them  a 
ground  on  which  to  reject  the  authorship  of  John.  They 
maintain  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  treatise  written  with 
marked  theological  bias,  inspired  by  the  controversy  about 
the  person  of  Christ  in  the  second  century.  The  great 
stumbling-block  for  them  is  the  very  clear  teaching  con- 
tained in  this  Gospel  respecting  the  divinity  of  Christ.    This, 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  47 


they  hold,  could  only  be  the  fruit  of  theological  preconcep- 
tions. And  the  great  desire  on  the  part  of  the  author  to 
establish  this  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  is  said  to  ex- 
plain a  good  many  of  the  other  special  features  that  charac- 
terize this  gospel.  This  explanation  contains  both  a  false- 
hood and  a  truth. 

A  careful  study  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  a  study  that  takes 
its  true  character  in  consideration,  does  not  bear  out  the 
contention  that  several  of  the  differences  between  the  Gospel 
of  John  and  the  Synoptics  amount  to  discrepancies.  Neither 
does  it  reveal  differences  that  cannot  be  accounted  for  in  a 
perfectly  natural  way.  We  desire  to  point  out  first  of  all 
that  there  are  not  only  dissimilarities  but  also  correspond- 
ences between  these  Gospels.  The  incidents  that  we  find 
mentioned  in  all  the  Gospels  are  the  following :  The  baptism 
of  John,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the  walking  on 
the  sea,  the  anointing  at  Bethany,  the  triumphal  entry,  the 
last  supper,  the  betrayal,  the  trial,  the  crucifixion,  the  burial 
and  the  resurrection.  Of  course  in  some  cases  the  details 
of  the  narrative  vary.  Besides  these  parallel  narratives 
there  are  many  passages  in  which  we  find  imagery,  sayings 
or  words  that  find  their  counterpart  in  the  synoptic  Gospels. 
Davidson  says  that  about  one-third  of  the  matter  in  John 
agrees  with  that  in  the  Synoptics. 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  that  the  diversity  is 
greater  than  the  similarity,  and  the  great  question  is :  How 
must  we  account  for  the  differences?  In  pointing  out  the 
way  in  which  we  must  look  for  a  solution  of  this  problem 
we  call  attention  to  several  particulars. 

1.  We  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  true  character  of 
John's  writing.  Neither  it  nor  the  other  Gospels  are  meant 
to  be  complete  histories  of  what  the  Lord  did  and  said  dur- 
ing his  life  in  the  flesh.  If  this  were  its  claim,  it  would  be 
disappointing  in  the  extreme,  since  all  that  John  narrates 
happened  in  a  few  days.  Like  the  Synoptics  the  Gospel  of 
John  is  a  pen-picture  of  the  Lord,  is  a  witness  to  him  from 


48  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

a  particular  point  of  view,  and  represents  a  phase  of  the 
apostolic  XTQpuYl^a.  We  must  allow  for  the  principle  of 
selection  and  of  selective  arrangement  in  the  composition  of 
this  work.  It  was  John's  aim  to  describe  the  Lord  from  a 
particular  point  of  view.  Hence  he  chose  from  the  great 
mass  of  apostolic  tradition,  whether  oral  or  written,  the  ma- 
terials that  suited  his  purpose  best,  and  arranged  them  in 
the  most  effective  way,  taking  in  consideration  as  much  as 
possible  the  chronological  order  in  which  the  events  oc- 
curred. This  general  truth  must  be  borne  in  mind  continu- 
ally, if  we  would  understand  the  differences  between  the 
Gospel  of  John  and  the  Synoptics. 

2.  The  great  controlling  factor,  however,  in  the  con- 
struction of  this  Gospel,  was  the  aim  of  the  writer.  There- 
fore it  is  necessary  that  we  have  some  understanding  of  this. 
Happily  we  need  not  guess  at  it,  because  John  himself  tells 
us  what  purpose  he  had  in  writing  his  Gospel.  He  says  in 
20:  31  :  "But  these  things  are  written  that  ye  might  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing 
ye  might  have  life  through  His  name."  According  to  this 
statement  the  apostle  had  a  twofold  aim,  the  one  theoretical 
and  the  other  practical,  the  one  his  proximate,  the  other  his 
ulterior  aim.  The  theoretical  aim  of  the  evangelist  was  two- 
fold :  he  wanted  to  show  in  a  convincing  manner  that  the 
historical  Jesus  was  the  Christ  sent  from  God  for  the  sal- 
vation of  the  world ;  and  that  this  Christ  was  not  a  mere 
man,  but  the  very  Son  of  God,  who  in  his  pre-existent  state 
shared  in  the  divine  glory,  a  glory  which  He  radiated  even 
while  He  dwelt  among  men  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  and 
that  would  again  shine  forth  in  heavenly  splendor  after  He 
had  finished  his  task.  It  was  the  desire  of  the  writer 
further,  to  present  this  Christ,  this  Son  of  God,  to  his  read- 
ers in  such  a  manner  that  they  might  be  led  to  believe  in  him, 
and  that  they,  being  united  to  him  the  fountain  of  life  by 
faith,  might  have  life  everlasting.  With  this  end  in  view 
John,  of  course,  selected  those  signs  and  discourses  of  the 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  49 

Lord  that  were  best  adapted  to  bring  out  his  glory  and  to 
lead  others  to  faith  in  him.  He  almost  seems  to  tell  us  this 
himself,  when  he  concludes  his  narrative  of  the  first  miracle 
performed  by  our  Lord  at  Cana  with  the  words :  "This  be- 
ginning of  miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  mani- 
fested his  glory;  and  his  disciples  believed  on  Him."  John 
views  the  miracles  of  which  he  speaks  as  aY][xela  that  exhibit 
the  divine  greatness  of  Christ.  And  he  limits  himself  almost 
exclusively  to  those  of  which  he  can  say  definitely  that  they 
led  men  to  believe  on  Christ,  or  of  which  Christ  himself 
points  out  the  symbolic  significance  in  His  discourses,  as : 

The  changing  of  water  into  wine  at  Cana  ("and  his 
disciples  believed  on  Him.") 

The  healing  of  the  ruler's  son  at  Cana  (Capernaum) 
("and  himself  believed  and  his  whole  house.") 

The  healing  of  the  impotent  man  at  the  pool  Bethesda 
(Christ  the  restorer  of  life). 

The  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  near  Bethsaida  (Christ 
the  spiritual  food,  the  heavenly  manna). 

The  restoring  of  the  blind  man's  sight  at  Jerusalem 
(Christ  the  light  of  the  world). 

The  raising  of  Lazarus  at  Bethany  (Christ  the  resurrec- 
tion and  the  life). 

In  harmony  with  his  aim  too  the  evangelist  records  such 
discourses  of  the  Lord  as  serve  to  explain  the  aiQ[jL£ta,  to 
bring  out  the  unique  relation  in  which  Christ  stands  to  the 
Father,  to  accentuate  Christ's  authority,  to  emphasize  the 
divine  character  of  his  mission,  etc.  Moreover  he  intro- 
duces several  individuals  to  show  us  how  Jesus  labored  to 
bring  them  to  the  conviction  that  He  was  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  as  f.  i.  Nathanael,  Nicodemus,  the  Samaritan  woman 
and  Thomas. 

Now  if  we  bear  these  things  in  mind,  many  of  the  differ- 
ences between  this  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics  are  immediately 
explained.  The  aim  of  John  being  what  it  is,  he  naturally 
speaks  of  Christ  rather  than  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  intro- 


50  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

duces  whatever  accentuates  the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  and 
brings  out  as  much  as  possible  that  Christ  revealed  himself 
as  the  Messiah  from  the  very  beginning  of  his  public  career. 
But  doing  this  in  a  historical  way,  he  cannot  represent  the 
Galilean  peasants  but  only  the  leaders  of  the  Jews  at  Jeru- 
salem as  the  recipients  of  this  revelation,  for  it  was  only  to 
them,  who  were  versed  in  the  Scriptures,  that  Christ  spoke 
so  explicitly  from  the  outset,  and  it  was  primarily  for  them 
that  He  expressed  his  thought  in  profound  discourses  rather 
than  in  parables.  This  in  turn  determines  the  time  of  which 
John  speaks  in  his  gospel  and  also  explains  how  it  is  that 
he  mentions  so  many  feasts,  because  it  was  almost  exclus- 
ively on  these  occasions  that  Jesus  visited  Jerusalem  and 
came  in  contact  with  the  Scribes  and  the  Chief  Priests.  It 
also  sheds  light  on  the  difference  in  the  attitude  of  the  Jews 
toward  Jesus.  For  a  long  time  the  Galileans  were  attached 
to  Christ  and  marveled  at  his  words  and  works ;  the  spirit 
of  opposition  was  aroused  in  them  especially  towards  the 
end  of  Christ's  labors  among  them  and  mostly  by  the  machi- 
nations of  the  Pharisees  that  came  from  Jerusalem.  The 
leaders  of  the  Jews  in  Judea,  on  the  other  hand,  hated  Jesus 
almost  from  the  beginning  of  his  public  ministry.  Their 
hatred  kept  pace  with  the  knowledge  they  received  of  Christ. 
3.  Every  attempt  at  solving  the  Johannine  problem  must 
also  make  allowance  for  the  fact  that  John  was  acquainted 
with  the  other  Gospels,  and  avoided  as  much  as  was  con- 
sistent with  his  aim  the  repetition  of  facts  that  were  already 
generally  known.  We  have  no  doubt  that  John  had  read  the 
other  Gospels  before  he  wrote  his  own.  There  are  certain 
features  in  his  Gospel  that  we  can  understand  only  on  that 
supposition.  According  to  21  :  19  John  wrote  his  Gospel 
after  the  death  of  Peter  and  therefore  comparatively  late. 
Now  he  certainly  would  not  be  such  a  stranger  in  his  own 
world  of  thought  as  not  to  know  the  Gospels  that  had 
already  been  composed.  Then  we  find  that  in  several  places 
the  evangelist  trusts  to  the  previous  knowledge  of  his  read- 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  51 

ers.  He  does  not  describe  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
supper  in  his  Gospel ;  yet  he  clearly  assumes  in  6:  51-58  that 
his  readers  were  acquainted  with  it.  Though  he  does  not 
give  a  description  of  the  ascension,  he  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  that  this  fact  is  well  known,  6:62;  20:  17.  Cf. 
further  1 :40 ;  3  :24 ;  6 :70,  etc.  In  several  cases  in  which  the 
persons  introduced  in  the  Gospel  misunderstand  the  Lord, 
the  writer  does  not  deem  it  necessary  to  explain  for  his 
readers  what  Jesus  really  meant,  because  he  knew  that  they 
themselves  were  able  to  correct  the  mistake,  Cf.  7:35,  36; 
3 :  4 ;  4 :  15  ;  6 :  52.  It  is  a  very  weighty  consideration  in  this 
connection  too  that  John  does  not  deign  to  answer  objections 
that  are  brought  against  the  Messiah-ship  of  Christ.  Notice 
f.  i.  1 :  45,  46 ;  7 :  41,  42  ;  7  :  52.  The  evangelist  does  not  give 
a  single  hint  of  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  thus  raised 
repeatedly.  We  can  understand  this  only  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  was  aware  of  the  fact  that  his  readers  knew 
from  the  other  Gospels  how  to  solve  the  problem.  John 
evidently  read  the  other  Gospels  and  this  explains  how  he 
could  avoid  to  such  a  great  extent  what  they  had  already 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  people. 

4.  Finally  we  must  also  bear  in  mind  that  the  indivi- 
duality of  the  author  is  stamped  on  his  literary  production. 
John  was  a  profound  meditative  spirit,  who  drank  deeply 
at  the  fountain  of  life.  He  searched  for  the  mainspring 
of  action  in  the  career  of  our  Saviour;  he  pondered  on  the 
hidden  background  of  the  mysterious,  the  wonderful  life  of 
his  Master.  He  was  the  best  qualified  of  all  the  apostles 
to  describe  the  divine  greatness  of  the  Lord.  And  it  was  no 
small  achievement  of  his,  that  he  presented  the  profoundest 
truths  in  the  most  simple  manner.  The  simplicity  of  its 
language  is  a  very  striking  feature  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  It 
is  due  in  part,  no  doubt,  to  John's  idiosyncracy,  and  in  part 
to  his  habit  of  contemplating  Christianity  in  its  most  funda- 
mental relations.  It  need  not  surprise  us  that  we  find  the 
same  style  in  the  discourses  of  Christ,  for  in  these  also  the 


52  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

style  is  to  a  great  extent  John's.  Neither  John  nor  the 
other  evangehsts  always  give  us  the  exact  words  of  Jesus. 
It  is  true  that  he  generally  employs  direct  discourse  in  intro- 
ducing the  words  of  the  Saviour,  but  this  is  merely  an  orien- 
tal custom  and  does  not  imply  that  the  words  were  used 
exactly  in  that  way.  But  the  Spirit  of  God  so  guided  the 
writer  that  he  reproduces,  though  possibly  in  a  slightly  dif- 
ferent form,  the  exact  truths  which  Jesus  sought  to  incul- 
cate on  his  hearers.  And  this  Spirit,  which  is  also  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  vouching  for  these  words,  makes  them  just  as 
really  the  words  of  Christ,  as  if  they  had  been  an  exact 
reproduction  of  the  words  Jesus  had  used  in  addressing  the 
Jews. 

THE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

During  the  past  century  the  human  origin  of  the  Gospels 
has  been  carefully  investigated.  With  a  great  deal  of  pa- 
tience and  ingenuity  every  chapter  and  verse  of  these  writ- 
ings has  been  scrutinized  and  referred  to  its  supposed  ulti- 
mate source.  The  discussion  of  the  divine  factor  that  oper- 
ated in  the  composition  of  these  books,  however,  has  been 
conspicuously  absent  from  these  studies.  And  this  neglect  is 
not  the  result  of  chance,  but  of  a  very  deliberate  plan.  A 
large  number  of  scholars  today  do  not  believe  in  any  special 
inspiration  of  these  writings  ;  others,  who  do  not  wish  to 
deny  their  divine  inspiration,  nevertheless  maintain  that 
their  claim  to  this  prerogative  should  be  waived  in  the  his- 
torical investigation  of  their  origin. 

In  the  preceding  century  many  were  wont  to  label  the 
Gospels  sneeringly  as  fictitious  narratives,  written  by  a  few 
religious  fanatics,  who  deliberately  lied  about  Jesus.  This 
crude  and  baseless  opinion  does  not  meet  with  great  favor 
today.  People  intuitively  recoil  from  that  position  and  feel 
that  they  must  take  a  more  respectful  attitude  towards  the 
Gospels.  They  now  regard  these  as  the  product  of  the 
reverent  and  in  part  unconscious  invention  of  the  Church ; 
or  as  the  expression  of  the  corporate  consciousness  and  the 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  53 

corporate  mood  of  the  first  Christian  community.  Even  so, 
of  course,  they  are  simply  human  productions  that  contain 
besides  a  large  quota  of  truth  a  great  deal  of  mythical  and 
lengendary  matter. 

Over  against  this  position  we  hold  that  the  Gospels  were 
written  by  men  who  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
that  they  are  therefore  absolutely  trustworthy  and  authori- 
tative accounts  of  the  life  of  our  Lord.  They  are  inspired 
records.  They  constitute  one  of  the  most  precious  fruits  of 
the  apostolic  inspiration,  since  they  are  one  and  all  the 
literary  embodime(nt  of  the  apostolic  Y.ripu-^\K(x.  The  sub- 
stance of  what  the  apostles  preached  is  contained  in  these 
writings.  Now  as  well  as  the  prophets  in  the  old  dispen- 
sation, the  apostles  in  the  new  were  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  is  quite  evident  from  the  New  Testament. 
Consider  the  promises  which  our  Lord  gave  to  His  disciples  : 
Matt.  10 :  19,  20,"  .  .  .  for  it  shall  be  given  you  in  that  same 
hour  what  ye  shall  speak ;  for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the 
Spirit  of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you."  John  14:26, 
"But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the 
Father  will  send  in  my  name,  He  shall  teach  you  all  things 
and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  whatsoever  I 
have  said  unto  you."  John  16:  13,14,  "Howbeit  when  the 
Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  He  will  guide  you  into  all  truth ; 
for  He  shall  not  speak  of  himself ;  but  whatsoever  He  shall 
hear,  that  shall  He  speak ;  and  He  will  show  you  things  to 
come.  He  shall  glorify  me ;  for  He  shall  receive  of  mine, 
and  shall  show  it  unto  you."  Notice  too  that  these  promises 
found  their  initial  fulfilment  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  We 
read  in  Acts  2:4:  "And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit 
gave  them  utterance."  And  after  this  day  the  apostles  were 
conscious  of  being  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Paul  says 
in  I  Cor.  2:  11-13,  "For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a 
man,  save  the  spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him?  even  so  the 
things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God.    Now 


54  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

we  have  received,  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit 
which  is  of  God ;  that  we  might  know  the  things 
which  are  freely  given  us  of  God.  Which  things  also  we 
speak,  not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth ;  comparing  spiritual  things 
with  spiritual."  And  in  II  Cor.  13:2b,  3,  " — and  being  ab- 
sent now  I  write  to  them  which  heretofore  have  sinned,  and 
to  all  other,  that,  if  I  come  again,  I  will  not  spare ;  since  ye 
seek  a  proof  of  Christ  speaking  in  me,  which  to  you-ward  is 
not  weak,  but  is  mighty  in  you."  These  few  passages,  which 
might  easily  be  multiplied,  must  suffice  for  the  present. 

Some  who  admit  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  do  not 
believe  the  apostles  were  also  inspired,  because  in  their  case 
they  do  not  hear  the  familiar  formula  "thus  saith  the  Lord," 
nor  behold  the  characteristic  phenomena  that  accompanied 
the  inspiration  of  the  prophets.  They  do  not  distinguish 
between  different  kinds  of  inspiration.  There  are  especially 
three  points  of  difference  between  the  inspiration  of  the 
prophets  and  that  of  the  apostles. 

1.  Under  the  Old  Covenant  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  yet 
dwell  in  the  Church,  but  operated  on  believers  from  without. 
So  it  was  also  in  the  case  of  the  prophets.  The  Holy  Spirit 
took  possession  of  them,  sometimes  suppressed  their  person- 
ality to  a  certain  degree,  and  then  employed  their  conscious- 
ness for  his  purpose.  In  the  new  dispensation,  however,  He 
took  up  his  abode  in  the  Church,  and  first  of  all  in  the 
apostles,  who  were  to  be  the  Church's  foundation ;  and  then, 
identifying  himself  to  a  great  extent  with  their  conscious 
life,  used  them  as  instruments  to  produce  his  revelation. 

2.  In  the  case  of  the  prophets  it  was  the  entrance  of  a 
foreign  element,  a  foreign  power  into  their  lives,  and  some- 
thing extraordinary  in  their  career  that  impelled  them  to 
prophesy.  It  was  a  power  that  they  could  not  resist,  because 
it  became  as  a  fire  burning  within  them.  With  the  apostles, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  was  the  indwelling  Spirit  in  connection 
with  their  official  task  that  led  them  to  soeak  the  Word  of 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  55 

God.  The  inspiration  of  the  prophets  was  intermittent ;  that 
of  the  apostles,  continuous  in  the  performance  of  their  regu- 
lar apostoHc  duties. 

3.  The  prophets  often  spoke  of  unknown  and  unseen 
things,  while  the  apostles  discoursed  on  things  which  they 
knew  and  saw.  In  connection  with  this  the  Holy  Spirit  did 
not  operate  through  the  same  faculty  in  both  the  prophets 
and  the  apostles.  In  the  former  it  was  the  imagination,  in 
the  latter  the  understanding,  especially  memory  and  reflec- 
tion, that  constituted  the  medium  of  divine  revelation. 
Hence  the  prophets  generally  spoke  in  poetic  and  in  symbolic 
language,  while  the  apostles  as  a  rule  clothed  their  thought 
in  ordinary  prose.  In  the  case  of  the  Gospels  the  inspiration 
of  the  apostles  has  above  all  the  character  of  a  uxoixviQati;. 
Cf .  John  14 :  26. 

This  apostolic  inspiration  gave  birth  to  the  Y.ripuy\L(x  of 
the  apostles,  but  does  not  yet  account  for  the  infallible 
records  we  have  of  this  in  the  Gospels.  Besides  the  apos- 
tolic we  must  take  into  consideration  a  separate  graphical  or 
transcriptive  inspiration,  if  we  would  fully  understand  the 
divine  origin  of  the  Gospels.  The  authors  were  led  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  composing  these  writings,  in  giving  to  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles  a  definite  written  form.  They 
were  guided  in  the  selection  of  their  material  and  its  proper 
arrangement,  and  in  the  choice  of  their  words  and  expres- 
sions, so  that  their  records  are  truly  a  part  of  the  Word  of 
God  for  the  Church  of  all  ages. 

The  question  naturally  arises,  whether  we  have  any  rea- 
sons to  think  that  the  Gospels  were  so  inspired.  In  answer 
we  would  say  that  we  have,  though  we  do  not  flatter  ourself 
with  the  idea  that  these  reasons  would  convince  anyone  who 
is  disinclined  to  accept  the  Scriptures  as  the  very  Word  of 
God. 

1.  The  contents  of  the  Gospels  testify  to  their  divine 
origin.  We  find  in  them  a  fourfold  portraiture  of  the 
Saviour.     There   are   many   differences    in   the    individual 


56  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

pictures,  yet  together  they  form  a  grand  unity.  Four  writ- 
ers, each  one  portraying  the  life  of  Christ  in  his  own  way, 
to  a  great  extent  without  knowing  each  other's  writings  or 
drawing  on  them,  so  that  their  individual  portraits  blend 
perfectly  into  a  harmonious  whole, — it  is  marvelous,  it  can 
only  be  understood,  if  we  assume  that  these  four  writers 
were  all  guided  unerringly  by  the  same  superintending 
Spirit.  The  Gospels  are  really  the  work  of  one  author.  And 
the  life  that  is  pictured  in  them  is  a  divine  life,  unfathom- 
able, mysterious,  far  surpassing  human  understanding.  And 
yet  that  incomparable,  that  divine  life  has  been  so  faithfully 
portrayed,  with  such  a  profound  insight  into  its  real  char- 
acter and  hidden  depths,  in  such  a  simple,  natural,  artless 
manner,  that  it  has  been  the  marvel  of  ages.  Could  man, 
unaided  by  higher  power,  describe  such  a  life?  No,  only 
they  who  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  were  equal  to 
the  task. 

2.  Taking  for  granted  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  is  conclusively  proved  by  the  words  of  Jesus 
and  the  apostles,  we  feel  that  it  calls  for  an  inspired  com- 
plement. It  covers  the  period  of  preparation  that  is  prophe- 
tic of  a  future  completion,  the  time  in  which  the  Church 
was  in  its  infancy,  that  points  forward  to  the  maturity  of  a 
coming  age.  It  is  filled  with  prophecies  that  await  fulfil- 
ment ;  it  contains  the  shadow  that  is  cast  before  the  coming 
body,  growing  more  distinct  as  the  ages  roll  on,  until  at  last 
it  seems  as  if  the  body  will  presently  appear,  yet  it  does 
not — the  Old  Testament  requires  a  compliment.  And  in 
harmony  with  it  this  too  must  be  inspired.  Of  what  avail 
would  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  be,  if  that  in 
which  it  culminates  is  not  inspired.  The  divine  surety  would 
be  wanting. 

3.  At  least  two  of  our  Gospels  were  written  by  apostles 
who,  in  speaking  to  their  contemporaries,  were  inspired  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.  Now  it  would  be  an  anomaly  that  they 
should  be  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  oral  witnessing 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  57 

to  Christ,  and  be  without  that  divine  guidance  in  perpetuat- 
ing their  testimony  for  all  future  ages.  It  was  the  will  of 
God  that  people  until  the  end  of  the  world  should  believe  on 
him  through  the  word  of  the  apostles,  John  17:20;  I  John 
1 :  3.  Hence  it  was  of  the  greatest  importance  that  there 
should  be  an  infallible  record  of  their  testimony. 

4.  There  are  some  Scripture  passages  that  point  to  the 
inspiration  of  the  gospel  records.  The  older  Lightfoot, 
(Works  IV  p.  113,  114;  XII  p.  7,  and  following  him  Urqu- 
hart,  The  Bible  its  Structure  and  Purpose  I  Ch.  5),  find  a 
proof  for  the  inspiration  of  Luke's  Gospel  in  1:3,  where 
they  would  translate  the  words  TcapYj/.oXouO'O/.OTc  avwOev 
by  "having  had  perfect  understanding  of  all  things  from 
above."  This  interpretation  is  favored  by  the  fact  that 
avtoOev  has  this  meaning  in  eight  of  the  thirteen  times  that 
it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  three  of  the  remain- 
ing instances  means  again,  while  it  is  translated  "from  the 
beginning"  only  here  and  in  Acts  26 : 4.  The  expressed  pur- 
pose of  Luke  in  writing  his  Gospel  also  falls  in  exceedingly 
well  with  the  rendering  from  above.  It  is,  he  writes  to 
Theophilus,  that  you  may  have  the  certainty  of  those 
things  in  which  you  have  been  instructed."  Yet  the  verb 
TCapaxoXouOew,  meaning,  to  follow  up  carefully,  and  thus, 
to  obtain  knowledge,  argues  decisively  against  it.  What  is 
of  greater  significance  for  us,  is  the  fact  that  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  is  quoted  as  r)  '•(p<x<fri  in  I  Tim.  5:18,  where  we  read: 
"For  the  Scripture  saith.  Thou  shalt  not  muzzzle  the  ox  that 
treadeth  out  the  corn,  and,  The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his 
hire."  The  only  place  in  the  entire  Bible  where  the  last 
words  are  found,  is  Luke  10 : 7.  Finally  we  call  attention 
to  II  Peter  3:  15.  16,  where  the  apostle  says:  ".  .  .  even  as 
our  beloved  brother  Paul  also  according  to  the  wisdom  given 
unto  him  hath  written  unto  you ;  as  also  in  all  his  epistles, 
speaking  of  these  things ;  in  which  are  some  things  hard  to 
be  understood,  which  they  that  are  unlearned  and  unstable 
wrest,  as  they  do  also  the  other  Scriptures,  unto  their  own 


58  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

destruction."  Here  we  find  that  the  writings  of  Paul  are 
placed  on  a  level  with  other  inspired  writings,  which  Peter 
calls,  "the  other  Scriptures."  There  is  good  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  this  expression  refers  to  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  to  those  of  the  New  Testament  that  were 
already  composed,  when  Peter  wrote  his  second  epistle, 
among  which  we  may  also  reckon  the  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke. 

5.  The  fact  that  the  early  Church  from  the  very  begin- 
ning accepted  these  Gospels  as  canonical,  is  also  a  proof  of 
their  inspired  character,  for  in  it  the  communal  conscious- 
ness of  the  Church  expressed  itself  in  regard  to  these  writ- 
ings ;  and  it  is  said  of  believers  in  their  corporate  existence 
that  they,  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  know  all  things.  Dean 
Alf ord  says :  "The  apostles  being  raised  up  for  the  special 
purpose  of  witnessing  to  the  gospel  history, — and  these 
memoirs  having  been  universally  received  in  the  early 
Church  as  embodying  that  their  testimony,  I  see  no  escape 
left  from  the  inference  that  they  come  to  us  with  inspired 
authority.  The  Greek  Testament,  Vol.  I,  Prolegomena  Sec- 
tion VI. 

6.  Finally  the  Holy  Spirit  testifies  in  the  heart  of  every 
believer  to  the  divine  character  of  the  Gospels,  so  that  they 
feel  assured  that  these  writings  contain  the  very  Word  of 
God.  Under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  they  realize 
that  these  Gospels  too  minister  to  the  deepest  needs  of  their 
spiritual  life,  they  realize  their  infinite  value,  marvel  at  their 
exquisite  beauty  and  find  in  them  ever  increasingly  the 
words  of  everlasting  life.  Thus  they  cannot  but  speak  their 
"Amen"  to  the  contents  of  these  books. 

THE  CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE 

GOSPELS  AS  A  WHOLE. 

The  Gospels  are,  of  course,  closely  related  to  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  They  describe  in  a  vivid  manner  the 
initial  stage  of  the  fulness  of  time,  showing  how  all  the 


THE  GOSPELS  IN  GENERAL  59 

prophecies  that  pointed  to  Christ  and  to  a  new  and  more 
spiritual  dispensation  began  to  be  fulfilled.  Rather  than 
enlarge  on  this  relation,  however,  we  shall  here  briefly  de- 
scribe the  peculiar  function  of  the  Gospels  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment revelation.  These  writings  are  related  to  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament,  as  the  Pentateuch  is  to  the  following 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Both  are  of  a  fundamental 
character,  laying  foundations  on  which  an  imposing  super- 
structure is  raised.  In  the  case  of  the  Gospels  this  is  clearly 
indicated  by  the  opening  words  of  Luke  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles :  "The  former  treatise  have  I  written,  O  Theo- 
philus,  of  all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach."  In 
this  passage  the  word  Y]p^aTO  is  not  pleonastic,  as  was  held 
by  some,  but  emphatic.  According  to  this  word  the  Gospel 
contained  the  narrative  only  of  what  Jesus  began  to  do  and 
to  teach,  which  would  prove  to  be  the  solid  foundation  and 
the  germinating  principle  of  all  that  He  would  continue  to 
do  on  earth  (through  His  apostles)  and  in  heaven.  The 
Gospels  mark  but  an  initial  stage  in  New  Testament  revela- 
tion ;  they  lack  finality. 

The  form,  the  method  and  the  substance  of  Christ's 
teaching  in  the  Gospels, — it  all  bears  the  stamp  of  an  incipi- 
ent stage.  Everyone  that  reads  the  Gospels  and  compares 
them  with  the  epistles  is  struck  by  the  simple  manner  in 
which  Christ  presents  his  teachings  to  the  multitude.  He 
gave  his  instruction  primarily  in  the  form  of  parables  and 
proverbial  sayings.  Now  it  is  of  the  essence  of  proverbial 
speech  that  it  detaches  itself  from  particular  occasions,  and 
is  therefore  best  adapted  to  the  expression  of  general  funda- 
mental truths.  Because  parables  and  proverbs  set  forth  the 
truth  in  a  lively  and  concrete  way,  they  were  very  appro- 
priate in  teaching  those  that  were  just  initiated  in  the  spirit- 
ual truths  of  the  new  dispensation.  Since  they  generally 
disclose  the  truth  but  partially,  they  stimulate  the  spirit  of 
inquiry.  A  very  suitable  way  of  instructing  beginners  in- 
deed !    We  notice  that  the  disciples  gradually  longed  for  a 


60  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

different  form  of  instruction,  and  towards  the  end  of  his 
Hf e  Christ  says  to  them :  "These  things  have  I  spoken  unto 
you  in  proverbs,  but  the  time  cometh,  when  I  shall  no  more 
speak  unto  you  in  proverbs,  but  I  shall  show  you  plainly 
of  the  Father."  John  16 :  25.  —  The  method  of  Jesus'  work 
points  to  the  same  general  conclusion.  His  teaching  has  a 
fragmentary  character.  He  speaks  a  word  here  and  a  word 
there,  discourses  now  with  this  person  and  then  with  that 
one,  just  as  a  missionary  among  the  gentiles  is  apt  to  do, 
expressing  the  deepest  truths  in  a  sporadic  way.  Important 
doctrines  were  thus  uttered  without  any  attempt  to  relate 
them  to  other  truths.  All  this  is  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  initial  character  of  Christ's  work. — The  contents  of 
Christ's  teaching  also  are  primitive  and  fundamental.  Many 
of  the  most  important  truths  are  indeed  taught  in  the  Gos- 
pels, but  they  are  not  elaborated,  nor  set  forth  in  all  their 
significance,  as  f.  i.  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  of  justi- 
fication by  faith,  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  of  the  Kingship 
of  Christ,  etc.  Other  truths  were  suppressed,  because,  as 
the  Lord  himself  says,  even  the  best  of  his  hearers  were  not 
yet  able  to  bear  them,  John  16:  12.  The  works  of  Christ 
were  also  initiatory.  His  miracles  contained  within  them 
the  promise  of  still  greater  works  in  the  future.  He  says 
to  his  disciples :  "He  that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that 
I  do  shall  he  do  also,  and  greater  works  than  these  shall  he 
do,  because  I  go  unto  my  Father,"  John  14 :  12. 

Now  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  simply  narrated  this 
initial  work  of  Christ,  as  they  remembered  it.  They  do  not 
make  mention  of  the  greater  works  that  followed  after 
Christ  had  gone  to  heaven,  nor  do  they  (except  in  very  rare 
instances)  reflect  on  or  seek  to  interpret  the  life  and  teach- 
ings of  the  Saviour.  This  remains  to  be  done  in  later 
writings. 


The  Gospel  of  Matthew. 


CONTENTS.* 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew  may  be  divided  into  five  parts : 
/.  The  Advent  of  the  Messiah,  1 :  1 — 4:  11.  Matthew 
proves  by  the  legal  genealogy  that  Christ  was  the  Son  of 
David,  the  child  of  the  promise ;  that,  in  harmony  with  the 
prophecies,  He  was  bom  of  a  virgin  at  Bethlehem  and  his 
way  was  prepared  by  John  the  Baptist ;  and  records  his  bap- 
tism and  temptation. 

//.  The  Public  proclamation  of  Messiah's  Kitigdom, 
4:  12 — 16:  12.  Here  we  find  Jesus,  after  John  is  taken  cap- 
tive, choosing  his  first  disciples  and  beginning  his  work  in 
Galilee,  4:  12 — 4:25.  Then  follows  a  splendid  example  of 
Christ's  teaching  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  which  the 
law  of  the  New  Kingdom  is  promulgated,  and  its  righteous- 
ness and  life  are  contrasted  with  those  of  Pharisees  and 
Scribes,  5-7.  This  is  followed  by  the  description  of  a  series 
of  miracles,  interspersed  with  brief  teachings  of  the  Lord 
and  the  calling  of  Matthew,  giving  clear  evidence  of  the 
power  and  mercy  of  Jesus  and  establishing  his  authority  to 
set  up  the  New  Kingdom  and  to  proclaim  its  laws,  8 : 1 — 9 :  38. 
Next  we  have  a  catalogue  of  the  twelve  apostles  and  their 
commission  to  announce  the  coming  Kingdom  to  the  house 
of  Israel,  10.  It  is  brought  out  that  the  teachings  and  mir- 
acles of  Jesus  lead  to  serious  questionings  on  the  part  of 
John  the  Baptist,  to  open  opposition  from  the  side  of  Phari- 
sees and  Scribes,  and  to  the  interference  of  his  relatives, 
11 : 1 — 12 :50 ;  that  as  a  result  Christ  substitutes  parabolic  for 
plain  teaching,  13:  1-53;  and  that  the  opposition  finally  cul- 


*    In  giving  the  outline  of  the  Gospels  I  have  followed  in 
general  Gregory  in  his  Why  Four  Gospels? 


62  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 


minates  in  his  rejection  by  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth,  by 
Herod  and  by  the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people,  both  of 
Jerusalem  and  of  Galilee,  leading  in  every  instance  to  the 
withdrawal  of  his  gracious  works  and  also  to  an  exposition 
and  condemnation  of  the  hypocracy  and  wickedness  of  the 
leaders  of  the  nation.     13  :  54 — 16:  12. 

///.  The  Distinct  and  Public  Claim  of  Messiahship, 
16:  13 — 23:39.  In  this  section  the  evangelist  shows,  how 
Christ  instructs  his  disciples  regarding  the  Messiahship.  The 
Lord  calls  forth  their  expHcit  confession  of  him  as  Messiah, 
16:  13-20;  and  teaches  them  in  a  threefold  form  that  He 
must  suffer  and  die,  but  will  rise  again.  In  connection  with 
these  announcements  we  have  the  narrative  of  the  trans- 
figuration and  the  healing  of  the  epileptic  demoniac,  and 
instruction  regarding  the  civil  and  religious  relations  and 
duties  of  the  disciples,  such  as  the  payment  of  the  temple 
tribute,  the  self-denying,  humble,  loving  and  forgiving 
spirit  of  true  discipleship,  divorce,  the  proper  attitude 
toward  children,  the  danger  of  earthly  possessions,  the 
gracious  character  of  the  reward  in  God's  Kingdom,  and 
the  ministering  spirit  demanded  in  his  followers,  16:21 — 
20 :  28.  At  Jerusalem  also  He  now  makes  his  claim,  enter- 
ing the  city  as  the  Son  of  David  and  assuming  Messianic 
authority  in  the  temple.  He  brings  out  clearly  the  future 
rejection  of  Israel,  answers  the  test  questions  of  his 
enemies  and  pronounces  a  sevenfold  woe  on  Pharisees  and 
Scribes,  20 :  29—23 :  39. 

IV.  The  Sacrifice  of  Messiah  the  Priest,  24 :  1 — 27 :  66. 
Matthew  demonstrates  that  Christ,  now  that  He  is  rejected 
by  the  Jews,  prepares  his  disciples  for  his  sacrificial  death 
by  unfolding  the  doctrine  of  his  future  coming  in  glory  and 
by  teaching  them  the  true  posture  of  his  followers  in  waiting 
for  the  day  of  his  coming,  24 :  1 — 25  :  46.  He  then  describes 
how  Christ  brought  his  sacrifice,  after  eating  the  Paschal 
lamb,  being  betrayed  by  Judas,  condemned  by  the  Sanhedrin 
and  Pilate,  and  dying  on  the  cross,  26 :  1 — 27 :  66. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW  63 

V.  The  Truhnph  of  Messiah  the  Saviour  and  King. 
The  author  brings  out  that  Jesus  by  rising  again  from  the 
dead  fully  established  his  claim  to  the  Messiahship.  Abun- 
dant evidence  of  the  resurrection  is  furnished  and  it  is 
clearly  shown  that  in  the  end  Christ  is  clothed  with  Mes- 
sianic authority. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  As  to  form  we  find,  in  the  first  place,  a  characteris- 
tically Jewish  numerical  arrangement  of  things  in  this  Gos- 
pel.    The  genealogy  in  ch.   1  consists  of  three  groups  of  X 
generations  of  fourteen  each.     There  are  seven  beatitudes  X 
ch.  5 ;  seven  petitions  in  the  Lord's  prayer  ch.  6 ;  a  group  of  ^ 
seven  parables  ch.   13 ;  and  seven  woes  on  Pharisees  and  "^ 
Scribes  ch.  23.    As  to  the  style  of  Matthew,  in  the  second 
place,  may  be  said  that  it  is  smoother  than  that  of  Mark, 
though  not  so  vivid.     But  it  is  tinged  with  Hebraisms,  less 
indeed  than  the  language  of  Luke,  but  more  than  that  of 
Mark.    It  is  rather  impersonal,  lacking  in  individuality.    Its 
individualism  of  language  consists  mostly  in  the  frequent  use 
of  certain  words  and  phrases.    The  Hebraistic  formulae  of 
transition  /.al   sYeveTO  and  /.at    iSou   occur   repeatedly,   and 
the  simple  xore  is  constantly  used,  especially  with  a  histori- 
cal tense.     Further  the  following  characteristic  expressions 
are   found:    yj   ^aatXst'a  twv   oupaviov   instead  of   the  more 
common  y)  ^,  Toi;  9eou ;    tva  TrXr^poOri  to  prjOev  utto  /.upiou  8ta 
Tou  TCpo^Y^TOu,  or  an  abbreviated  form  of  this  expression ; 
and  OTTtoi;  instead  of  tva. 

2.  The  arrangement  of  the  material  in  this  Gospel  also 
differs  considerably  from  that  in  the  other  Synoptics.  The 
narrative  is  not  continuous,  but  is  interrupted  by  five  great  "^ 
discourses,  such  as  are  not  found  in  the  Gospels  of  Mark 
and  Luke,  viz.  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  chs.  5-7;  the 
charge  to  the  apostles,  ch.  10 ;  the  parables  of  the  Kingdom, 
ch.  13;  the  discourse  on  the  church,  ch.  18;  and  the  final 
eschatological  discourses  of  Christ  on  the  last  judgment,  chs. 


64  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

23-25.     After  every  one  of  these  discourses  we  find  the 
<  words  :    "And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jesus  had  ended  (made 
an  end  of,  finished)  these  sayings,  etc. 

3.  As  to  contents  the  following  peculiarities  deserve  our 
attention :  In  the  first  place  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  has  a 
more  Jewish  aspect  than  the  other  Synoptics.  Its  predomin- 
ant subject  is,  the  Messiah  and  his  Kingdom.  The  discourses 
of  which  we  spoke  all  have  reference  to  this  Kingdom,  and 
it  is  clearly  brought  out  that  the  mission  of  Christ  is  to  the 
Jews  only  and  that  the  establishment  of  His  rule  will  be  a 
restoration  of  the  fallen  throne  of  David.  Cf .  the  genealogy 
ch.  1  and  also  2:2;  10:5,  6;  15:24;  19:28,  etc.  Yet  we 
must  not  think  that  it  positively  excludes  the  idea  of  salva- 
tion for  the  gentiles ;  it  clearly  holds  out  a  hope  to  them  and 
even  announces  that  the  Kingdom  will  be  taken  from  Israel 
on  account  of  its  unfaithfulness.  Cf.  2:1-13;  8:10-12; 
15  :  28 ;  21 :  43  ;  22  :  1-14.  In  the  second  place  the  first  Gos- 
>'  pel  alludes  to  the  Old  Testament  more  frequently  than  any 
other.  It  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  New  Testament  re- 
veals the  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  promises ;  that  Christ 
was  born,  revealed  himself  and  labored  as  the  prophets  of 
[[  old  had  foretold.  Matthew  contains  more  than  40  quota- 
tions, while  Mark  has  21  and  Luke,  22.  The  characteristic 
use  of  tva  (otcw?)  TuXiQpwO'^  in  quotations  proves  that  Mat- 
thew had  an  eye  for  the  divine  teleology  in  history. — And 
in  the  third  place  Matthew  looks  at  things  in  their  grand 
general  aspect  and  pays  less  attention  to  the  minor  details 
on  which  Mark  so  much  loves  to  dwell. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  superscription  ascribes  the  first  Gospel  to  Matthew. 
That  this  embodies  the  opinion  of  the  early  Church  is  evi- 
dent from  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Origen, 
Eusebius  and  several  others,  who  all  point  to  Matthew  as 
the  author.  The  Gospel  itself  shows  unmistakably,  by  its 
Jewish  physiognomy,  that  its  author  was  a  Jew,  yea  even 
that  he  was  a  Palestinian  Jew,  for  he  quotes  from  the  He- 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW  65 

brew  and  not  from  the  Septuagint.  It  contains  no  direct 
evidence,  however  to  the  authorship  of  Matthew,  though 
there  are  a  couple  points  of  difference  between  it  and  the 
other  Synoptics  that  are  best  explained  on  the  assumption 
that  Matthew  wrote  it.  When  we  compare  the  lists  of  the 
twelve  apostles  in  Mt.  10:2-4;  Mk.  3:16-19;  and  Luke 
6:  14-16,  we  notice  that  only  in  the  first  Gospel  the  name 
Matthew  is  followed  by  the  less  honorable  qualification  "the 
publican  ;"  and  that  it  has  the  order,  "Thomas  and  Matthew'^ 
instead  of,  "Matthew  and  Thomas.' 

The  apostolic  authorship  of  this  gospel  is  denied  by  sev- 
eral rationalistic  critics,  such  as  Davidson,  Jiilicher  and  Bal- 
jon.    Their  reasons  for  rejecting  it  are  the  following: 

( 1 ) .  Legend,  misunderstanding  and  irrelevancy  are  very 
prominent  in  this  Gospel,  which  would  not  be  the  case  if  the 
writer  had  been  an  eye  and  ear  witness  of  Jesus.  The  refer- 
ence is  to  such  narratives  as  the  story  of  the  wise  men,  the 
flight  into  Egypt,  and  the  slaughter  of  the  innocents,  ch.  2 ; 
the  doublet  of  the  miraculous  feeding,  14:  16-21 ;  15  :  32-38; 
the  story  of  Jesus  riding  into  Jerusalem  on  two  animals, 
21:2,  7 ;  the  opening  of  the  graves  at  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  27 :  52 ;  the  setting  of  a  watch  at  the  sepulchre  and 
the  bribing  of  them,  etc.  (2).  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  is 
too  closely  dependent  on  Mark,  not  merely  in  choice  of 
matter  and  arrangement  but  in  verbal  detail,  to  be  the  work 
of  an  apostle.  (3).  The  author  never  indicates  by  the  use 
of  the  pronouns  /  or  we  that  he  was  an  eye  witness  of  the 
things  which  he  narrates. 

In  answer  to  these  objections  it  may  be  said  that  one's 
disbelief  in  miracles  does  not  prove  them  false,  and  that  the 
seeming  difficulties  to  which  reference  is  made  easily  yield 
to  good  exegesis.  The  dependence  of  Matthew  on  Mark 
(instead  of  the  reverse  as  the  Tubingen  school  believed)  is 
indeed  accepted  by  a  great  number  of  scholars  today,  but  is 
not  absolutely  proven.  And  even  if  it  were,  it  would  be  no 
disparagement  for  Matthew.    The  impersonal  objective  style 


66  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

is  the  prevailing  one  in  the  historical  books  of  the  Bible  and 
is  irrelevant  as  an  objection  to  the  authorship  of  the  apostle. 
Our  information  regarding  Matthew  is  very  scanty.  We 
read  of  him  first  in  connection  with  the  call  to  follow  Jesus, 
Mt.  9 :  9,  10 ;  Mk.  2 :  14,  15  ;  Lk.  5  :  27-29.  There  is  no  rea- 
son to  doubt  that  the  Matthew  of  the  first  Gospel  is  the  Levi 
of  the  second  and  third.  Possibly  his  name  was  changed  by 
the  Lord  after  his  call  to  the  discipleship,  just  as  those  of 
Peter  and  Paul.  In  Mark  he  is  said  to  be  the  son  of 
Alphaeus,  whom  some  identify  with  Alphaeus  the  father  of 
the  apostle  James.  But  this  identification  does  not  commend 
itself  to  us,  since  we  may  assume  that,  if  James  and  Matthew 
had  indeed  been  brothers,  this  would  have  been  stated  in 
their  case  as  well  as  it  is  in  those  of  Andrew  and  Peter  and 
John  and  James.  He  belonged  to  the  despised  class  of  pub- 
licans and  hence  cannot  have  been  a  very  strict  Jew.  When 
Jesus  called  him,  he  made  a  great  feast  for  the  Lord,  to 
which  he  also  invited  many  publicans  and  sinners.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  describes  him  as  a  rigorous  ascetic,  living  "on 
seeds  and  herbs  and  without  flesh."  It  is  not  impossible  that 
by  a  very  natural  reaction  his  sinful  life  changed  into  one  of 
great  austerity.  A  veil  of  obscurity  is  cast  over  the  apostolic 
career  of  Matthew.  Tradition  has  it  that  he  remained  at 
Jerusalem  with  the  other  apostles  for  about  twelve  years 
after  the  death  of  the  Lord,  laboring  among  his  fellow- 
countrymen.  When  the  work  was  done,  it  is  said,  he 
preached  the  Gospel  to  others,  according  to  the  popular  opin- 
ion in  Ethiopia.    He  probably  died  a  natural  death. 

COMPOSITION. 

/.  Original  Language.  A  hotly  debated  question  is  that 
regarding  the  language  in  which  Matthew  originally  wrote 
his  Gospel.  The  difficulty  of  the  problem  arises  from  the 
fact  that  external  testimony  and  internal  evidence  seem 
to  disagree.  As  a  result  the  camp  is  very  much  divided, 
some  scholars  ardently  defending  a  Hebrew,  others  with 
equal  zeal  a  Greek  original.     The  earliest  testimony  in  re- 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW  67 

gard  to  this  matter  is  that  of  Papias  and  runs  as  follows : 
"Matthew  composed  the  oracles  (Xoyta)  in  the  Hebrew  dia- 
lect, and  everyone  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able."  It 
is  clear  from  the  original  that  in  these  words  the  emphasis 
falls  on  the  phrase  "in  the  Hebrew  language."  But  Papias 
does  not  stand  alone  in  this  assertion ;  a  similar  statement 
is  found  in  Irenaeus :  "Matthew  among  the  Hebrews  did 
also  publish  a  Gospel  in  writing  in  their  own  language." 
Pantaenus  is  said  to  have  gone  to  India,  where  he  found 
"the  writing  of  Matthew  in  Hebrew  letters."  Origen  quoted 
by  Eusebius  also  says  that  "the  first  Gospel  was  written  by 
Matthew  .  .  .  who  delivered  it  to  the  Jewish  believers,  com- 
posed in  the  Hebrew  language."  Eusebius  himself  makes 
the  following  statement :  "For  Matthew,  having  first 
preached  to  the  Hebrews,  when  he  was  about  to  go  to  other 
people,  delivered  to  them  in  their  own  language  the  Gospel 
written  by  himself."  Jerome  also  states  that  "Matthew 
wrote  a  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  in  Judea  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage and  letters  for  the  benefit  of  those  of  the  circumcision 
who  believed.  Who  afterwards  translated  it  into  Greek,  is 
uncertain."  To  these  testimonies  might  be  added  those  of 
Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Epiphanius,  Ebedjesu  and 
Chrysostom. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  pointed  out  that  the  present 
Greek  Gospel  does  not  impress  one  as  a  translation,  but  has 
all  the  appearance  of  an  original  work,  since:  (1.)  The 
hypothesis  of  a  translation  fails  to  account  for  the  identity 
seen  in  certain  parts  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  (2.)  While 
the  author  himself  indeed  quotes  from  the  Hebrew  text  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  quotations  of  our  Lord  are  almost 
uniformly  taken  from  the  Septuagint.  Is  it  conceivable  that 
this  would  be  the  case  in  a  Hebrew  Gospel?  (3.)  The 
Gospel  contains  translations  of  Hebrew  words,  as :  "They 
shall  call  His  name  Emmanuel,  which  being  interpreted  is, 
God  with  us,"  1 :  23 ; — "A  place  called  Golgotha,  that  is  to 
say,  a  place  of  a  skull,"  27:33.     (4.)     There  are  certain 


68  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

explanations  of  Palestinian  customs  and  habitual  occur- 
rences that  would  have  been  altogether  superfluous  in  a 
Hebrew  Gospel,  naturally  intended  only  for  the  natives  of 
Palestine,  f .  i.  in  22 :  23 ;  27 :  8,  15  ;  28 :  15. 

The  conclusion  to  which  this  evidence  leads  is  corrobor- 
ated by  the  following  facts:  (1.)  In  all  probability  no  one 
has  ever  seen  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  no  trace 
of  it  can  now  be  found.  (2.)  All  the  quotations  from  Matt- 
hew in  the  early  Church  fathers  are  taken  from  the  present 
Greek  Gospel.  (3.)  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  always  stood 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  other  Gospels  and  is  cited  just 
as  much  as  they  are. 

This  evidence  both  external  and  internal  has  given  rise 
to  several  theories,  which  we  can  briefly  state  in  the  follow- 
ing manner:  (1.)  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew 
and  someone  else  translated  it  into  Greek.  This  position 
was  held  by  the  Church  in  general  until  the  time  of  the 
Reformation.  Since  then  several  Protestant  scholars  took 
another  view,  because  Rome  defended  the  ultimate  author- 
ity of  the  Vulgate  by  pointing  out  that  the  Greek  Matthew 
was  also  merely  a  translation.  The  attacks  of  Rationalism 
on  the  so-called  second-hand  Matthew,  and  the  dubious  char- 
acter of  a  part  of  the  ancient  testimony,  also  served  to  bring 
this  theory  into  discredit.  Notwithstanding  this,  however, 
some  of  the  ablest  scholars  have  defended  it  up  to  the  pres- 
ent. The  prevailing  idea  among  them  is  that  the  Greek 
Matthew  is  not  so  much  in  all  parts  a  literal  translation  as  a 
new  redaction.  According  to  Westcott  it  gives  in  writing 
the  Greek  counterpart  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel,  that  had  taken 
shape  in  oral  tradition  from  the  beginning.  Zahn  regards 
it  as  the  ripe  fruit  of  the  interpretation  of  the  Hebrew 
original  in  the  congregations  to  which  Papias  refers. 

(2.)  There  never  was  a  Hebrew  original,  but  Matthew 
wrote  his  Gospel  in  the  Greek  language.  The  present  gospel 
is  not  a  translation,  but  an  original  work.  They  who  hold 
this  view  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  testimony  of  Papias  and 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW  69 

of  those  following  him  was  a  sheer  mistake,  due  partly  to 
ignorance  and  partly  to  a  confounding  of  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  with  the  Ebionite  Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews. 

(3.)  Matthew  wrote  neither  a  Hebrew  nor  a  Greek 
Gospel,  but,  if  anything,  a  work  called  the  Xofta  by  Papias, 
which  must  have  been  a  collection  of  the  sayings  or  dis- 
courses of  the  Lord.  According  to  some  these  Xoyta  are 
lost,  but  must  probably  be  identified  with  one  of  the  sup- 
posed sources  (Q)  of  our  present  Gospels.  Others  as  Godet 
and  Holdsworth  believe  that  the  work  contained  the  dis- 
courses that  we  find  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  and  was 
therefore  incorporated  bodily  in  our  present  Gospel. 

(4.)  The  evangelist  after  writing  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew 
with  a  view  to  his  countrymen,  possibly  when  he  had  left 
Palestine  to  labor  elsewhere,  translated  or  rather  furnished 
a  new  recension  of  his  Gospel  in  the  Greek  language  with  a 
view  to  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora.  The  former  was  soon 
lost  and  altogether  replaced  by  the  latter. 

In  formulating  our  opinion  in  regard  to  this  question, 
we  desire  to  state  first  of  all  that  we  have  no  sufficient  rea- 
son to  discredit  the  testimony  of  the  early  Church.  It  is 
true  that  Eusebius  says  of  Papias  that  he  was  "a  credulous, 
weak-minded,  though  pious  man,"  but  in  connection  with 
this  we  must  bear  in  mind :  ( 1 )  that  Eusebius  says  this 
in  connection  with  the  chiliastic  opinions  of  Papias  that  were 
odious  to  the  historian;  (2)  that  he  himself  elsewhere  testi- 
fies that  Papias  was  a  man  "in  the  highest  degree  eloquent 
and  learned  and  above  all  skilled  in  the  Scriptures,"  and  (3) 
that  the  peculiar  views  of  Papias  did  not  necessarily  impair 
his  veracity,  nor  invalidate  his  testimony  to  a  historical  fact. 
Let  us  remember  also  that  it  is  inconsistent  to  believe  Papias, 
when  he  says  that  Matthew  wrote  the  Gospel,  and  to  dis- 
credit his  further  testimony  that  the  apostle  wrote  in 
Hebrew,  as  some  scholars  do.  It  is  indeed  almost  certain  that 
Pantaenus  was  mistaken,  when  he  thought  that  he  had  found 


70  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

the  Hebrew  Gospel  in  India ;  and  that  Jerome  labored  under 
a  delusion,  when  he  imagined  that  he  had  translated  it  at 
Cesarea.  What  they  saw  was  probably  a  corruption  of  the 
Hebrew  original,  known  as,  "the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews."  But  this  possible  mistake  does  not  invalidate 
the  other  independent  testimony  of  Jerome  and  that  of  all 
the  early  fathers  to  the  effect  that  Matthew  wrote  the  Gospel 
in  Hebrew. 

In  the  second  place  we  desire  to  point  out  that  Papias  in 
speaking  of  the  Xoyta  of  Matthew  undoubtedly  referred  to 
his  Gospel.  The  word  Xb-^ia  does  not  mean  speeches  or 
sayings,  as  is  now  often  asserted.  It  is  found  four  times  in 
the  New  Testament,  viz.  in  Acts  7 :  38 ;  Rom.  3:2;  Heb. 
5 :  12 ;  I  Peter  4:11,  and  in  every  one  of  these  places  it  has 
its  classical  meaning  of  oracles.  It  is  applied  to  the  divine 
utterances  of  God  in  his  Word.  In  later  writers  the  word 
is  generally  employed  to  indicate  inspired  writings.  There 
is  no  reason  to  think  that  Papias  used  the  word  in  the  sense 
of  XoYOi.  If  in  addition  to  this  we  take  in  consideration  that 
in  all  probability  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  is  based  on  that 
of  Papias  and  that  he  takes  the  word  as  referring  to  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  the  presumption  is  that  Papias  had  the 
Gospel  in  mind.  The  meaning  of  his  testimony  is  therefore, 
that  the  first  Gospel  was  written  in  Hebrew.  The  so-called 
Logia-source  is  a  creature  of  the  imagination. 

In  the  third  place  the  internal  evidence  of  our  present 
Gospel  proves  conclusively  that  this  is  not  a  mere  transla- 
tion of  a  Hebrew  original.  The  evidence  adduced  seems 
quite  sufficient.  The  Greek  Matthew  may  be  and  most 
likely  is  in  substance  a  translation  of  the  original  Hebrew ; 
yet  it  must  "be  regarded  as  in  many  respects  a  new  recension 
of  the  Gospel.  The  loss  of  the  Hebrew  original  and  the 
general  substitution  for  it  of  the  Greek  version  is  readily 
explained  by  the  scattering  of  the  Jews  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  and  by  the  early  corruption  of  the  Hebrew 
Gospel  in  the  circles  of  the  Ebionites  and  the  Nazarenes. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW  71 

In  the  fourth  place  it  seems  most  plausible  that  Matthew 
himself,  shortly  after  he  had  written  the  Hebrew  Gospel, 
translated  it,  adjusting  it  in  several  respects  to  the  needs 
of  the  Jews  that  were  dispersed  in  different  lands.  True, 
early  tradition  does  not  speak  of  this,  and  Jerome  even  says 
that  it  was  not  known  in  his  time  who  translated  it  into 
Greek.  This  favors  the  idea  that  it  was  done  very  early. 
Moreover  our  Greek  Gospel  was  known  from  the  beginning 
as  the  Gospel  xaxa  MatOatov,  just  as  the  second  and  third 
as  the  Gospel  /.axa  Mapxov  and  xaxa  Aouxav.  As  such 
it  is  also  universally  quoted  by  those  fathers  that  are  accus- 
tomed to  mention  their  authors.  The  case  of  Matthew  would 
thus  be  analogous  to  that  of  Josephus. 

//.  Readers  and  Purpose.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  was 
undoubtedly  destined  for  the  Jews.  This  is  expressly  stated 
by  Irenaeus,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  e.  a. 
This  testimony  is  corroborated  by  internal  evidence.  The 
genealogy  of  Jesus  goes  back  only  to  Abraham,  the  father 
of  the  Hebrew  race ;  and  in  harmony  with  the  tenets  of  the 
Jews  the  Messiahship  of  Christ  is  proved  from  the  prophets. 
The  whole  Gospel  impresses  one  as  being  occasioned  by  the 
exigencies  of  the  Jews  both  in  Palestine  and  without.  In 
none  of  the  other  Gospels  is  the  false  position  of  Pharisees 
and  Scribes  so  clearly  exposed. 

It  was  Matthew's  purpose  to  convince  the  Jews  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  great  Davidic  King  promised  by 
the  prophets.  He  knew  that,  if  this  could  be  shown  clearly, 
they  would  be  won  for  the  Saviour.  This  purpose  is  very 
evident  from  the  Gospel.  The  legal  genealogy  of  Christ  is 
traced  back  to  Abraham ;  and  it  is  clearly  brought  out  that 
prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the  manner  of  Christ's  birth  1  :  23  ; 
the  place  of  his  nativity  2  :  6 ;  his  flight  into  Egypt  2:15;  the 
murder  of  the  innocents  2:18;  his  residence  at  Nazareth 
2:23;  the  ministry  of  his  forerunner  Z:Z;  11:10,  his  re- 
moval to  Capernaum  4:  15,  16;  his  healing  the  sick  8:  17; 
his  meek  and  retiring  disposition  12 :  18-21 ;  his  teaching  by 


i 


72  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

parables  13:34,  35;  his  entry  into  Jerusalem  21:4,  5;  his 
rejection  by  the  builders  21 :  42 ;  his  being  David's  Son  and 
Lord  22:  44;  his  desertion  by  his  disciples  26:  31 ;  the  price 
of  his  betrayal  27 : 9 ;  the  division  of  his  raiment  27 :  35 ; 
and  his  cry  of  agony  27 :  46.  It  is  Matthew  only  that  records 
the  sayings  of  the  Lord :  "I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but 
to  fulfill,"  5:17;  and :  "I  was  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  house  of  Israel,"  15 :  24.  To  him  Jerusalem  is  "the 
Holy  City,"  "the  Holy  Place,"  and  "the  City  of  the  great 
King."  On  seven  different  occasions  he  calls  the  Lord  "the 
Son  of  David."  In  harmony  with  the  prophets  Christ  the 
King  is  most  prominent  in  his  Gospel,  though  of  course  the 
prophetic  and  priestly  character  of  the  Lord  are  also  clearly 
revealed. 

///.  Time  and  Place.  Little  can  be  said  as  to  the  time, 
when  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel ;  and  what  few  indications 
we  have  of  the  time  are  rather  uncertain,  because  we  do  not 
know,  whether  they  bear  on  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  origi- 
nal or  of  the  present  Greek  Gospel.  Tradition  generally 
points  to  Matthew's  Gospel  as  being  the  first.  Irenaeus 
makes  a  very  definite  statement,  viz. :  "Matthew  among  the 
Hebrews  published  a  Gospel  in  their  own  language,  while 
Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  the  Gospel  at  Rome  and 
founding  a  church  there."  This  must  have  been  somewhere 
between  63-67  A.  D. 

Something  may  be  gathered  in  this  respect  from  the  con- 
tents of  the  Gospel.  We  cannot,  as  some  do,  infer  from 
22:  7  that  it  was  composed  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, for  then  we  would  have  to  assume  that  our  Lord  could 
not  have  predicted  this  event.  Moreover  this  argument 
impugns  the  veracity  of  the  evangelist.  A  proof  for  the  con- 
trary, viz.  that  this  Gospel  was  written  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  is  found  in  24:  15,  where  we  find  in  a 
discourse  of  the  Saviour  this  parenthetic  clause  of  the 
writer:  "let  him  that  readeth  understand,"  in  connection 
with  the  Lord's  admonition  to  the  inhabitants  of  Judea  to 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW  73 

flee  to  the  mountains,  when  they  shall  see  the  abomination 
of  desolation  standing  in  the  Holy  Place.  The  same  infer- 
ence is  drawn  by  some  from  the  eschatological  discourse  of 
Christ  in  chs.  24-25,  where  the  beginning  of  sorrows,  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  Lord's  return  in  glory 
are  placed  alongside  of  each  other,  without  any  distinction 
of  time ;  and  the  writer  does  not  by  a  single  word  betray  any 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
would  be  separated  in  time  from  the  Lord's  return.  But 
this,  being  an  argument  from  silence,  is  rather  precarious. 
The  dates  assigned  to  this  Gospel  by  rationalistic  critics 
range  from  about  70  to  125  A.  D. 

As  to  the  place,  where  the  Gospel  was  written,  Athana- 
sius  says  that  it  was  published  at  Jerusalem ;  Ebedjesu,  in 
Palestine ;  and  Jerome,  in  Judea  for  the  sake  of  those  in 
Judea  who  believed.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Gospel  itself 
that  contradicts  this.  It  is  very  likely,  however,  that  the 
Greek  Gospel  was  written  elsewhere. 

IV.  Method.  The  question  arises,  whether  Matthew 
used  sources  in  the  composition  of  his  Gospel.  The  preva- 
lent opinion  at  present  is  that  the  writer  of  this  Gospel, 
whoever  he  may  have  been,  drew  in  the  main  on  two  sources, 
viz.  on  the  XoYtot  of  Matthew  for  the  discourses  of  the  Lord, 
and  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark  for  the  narrative  portion  of  his 
work.  It  is  found  necessary,  however,  to  assume  several 
other  minor  sources.  Thus  Weiss,  Jiilicher,  Baljon,  Peake, 
Buckley,  Bartlet  (in  Hastings  D.  B.)  e.  a.  Against  these 
see  Davidson  and  Salmon.  Zahn's  opinion  is  that  Mark 
employed  the  Hebrew  Matthew  in  the  composition  of  his  Gos- 
pel, and  that  the  writer  of  our  Greek  Matthew  in  turn  used 
the  Gospel  of  Mark.  The  great  diversity  of  opinion  among 
New  Testament  scholars  in  this  respect  shows  clearly  that 
it  is  quite  impossible  to  determine  with  any  degree  of  cer- 
tainty what  sources  Matthew  employed.  All  we  can  say  is 
(1)  that  in  all  probability  the  Hebrew  Matthew  depended 
on  oral  tradition  only ;  (2)  that  our  Greek  Matthew  is  based 


74  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

on  the  Hebrew ;  and  (3)  that  it  is  not  impossible  that  Matt- 
hew had  read  the  Gospel  of  Mark  before  he  composed  the 
present  Greek  Gospel. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew  has  been  accepted  as  canonical 
from  the  earliest  times.  There  are  many  traces  of  its  use, 
especially  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  the  Didache. 
Next  we  find  it  clearly  quoted  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
who  cites  ten  passages  with  the  significant  formula  "it  is 
written."  This  proves  that  the  Gospel  was  used  and  recog- 
nized as  canonical  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century. 
Further  it  is  abundantly  testified  to  until  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  when  all  controversy  ceases,  there  being 
up  to  that  time  altogether  21  witnesses,  so  that  this  Gospel 
is  one  of  the  best  attested  books  in  the  New  Testament. 
Among  these  witnesses  are  the  old  Latin  and  Syriac  Versions 
that  contain  this  Gospel ;  early  church  fathers  that  refer  to 
it  as  authoritative  or  quote  it ;  and  heretics  who,  even  while 
attacking  the  truth,  tacitly  admit  the  canonical  character  of 
the  Gospel. 

This  book  is  properly  placed  at  the  very  beginning  of 
the  New  Testament.  It  forms  part  of  the  foundation  on 
which  the  New  Testament  structure  was  to  be  reared.  And 
among  the  Gospels,  which  together  constitute  this  founda- 
tion, if  is  rightly  put  in  the  first  place.  It  is,  as  it  were,  a 
connecting  link  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New. 
As  the  Old  Testament  had  reference  to  the  Jews  only,  so 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  written  for  the  old  covenant  peo- 
ple. And  it  is  clearly  linked  to  the  Old  Testament  by  its 
continual  reference  to  the  prophets.  The  permanent  spirit- 
ual value  of  this  Gospel  is  that  it  sets  forth  in  clear  outline 
Christ  as  the  One  promised  of  old;  and,  in  harmony  with 
the  prophetic  literature,  especially  as  the  great  divine  King, 
before  whom  the  Church  of  all  ages  must  bow  down  in 
adoration. 


The  Gospel  of  Mark. 


CONTENTS. 

We  may  divide  the  contents  of  Mark's  Gospel,  that 
treats  of  Christ  as  the  mighty  Worker,  into  five  parts : 

/.  The  Advent  of  the  mighty  Worker,  1 :  1 — 2 :  12.  Jesus 
is  heralded  as  the  mighty  One  by  John  the  Baptist,  and  pro- 
claimed as  the  Son  of  God  by  the  Father,  1 :  1-13.  After 
calling  some  of  his  disciples.  He  taught  the  Galilean  multi- 
tudes as  one  having  authority,  worked  mighty  miracles 
among  them,  as  the  casting  out  of  demons,  the  healing  of 
Peter's  mother-in-law,  the  cleansing  of  a  leper,  etc.,  and 
showed  His  authority  to  forgive  sins,  1 :  \A — 2 :  12. 

//.  The  Conflict  of  the  mighty  Worker,  2 :  12 — 8 :  26.  In 
connection  with  the  feast  of  Levi,  the  fact  that  the  apostles 
did  not  fast,  and  that  they  plucked  ears  of  corn  on  the  sab- 
bath, Jesus  gives  the  Pharisees  instruction  regarding  the 
purpose  of  his  coming,  and  the  moral  character  of  the  re- 
quirements of  his  Kingdom,  2 :  13 — 3  :  8.  The  healing  of  the 
man  with  the  withered  hand  leads  to  the  enmity  of  Pharisees 
and  Herodians,  which  caused  the  withdrawal  of  Jesus.  The 
Lord  now  chose  twelve  apostles  and  continued  his  mighty 
works,  so  that  even  his  friends  and  relatives  sought  to  re- 
strain him,  and  his  enemies  claimed  that  He  did  them 
through  the  power  of  the  devil,  3 :  9-35.  Next  we  find  him 
teaching  the  people  regarding  the  origin,  the  quiet  growth, 
independent  of  man's  efforts,  and  the  future  strength  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  4:  1-34.  His  divine  power  shines  forth  in 
his  calming  the  sea,  his  curing  the  demoniacs  in  the  land  of 
the  Gadarenes  and  the  woman  that  had  the  issue  of  blood, 
and  his  raising  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  4 :  36 — 5  :  43.  He  finds 
no  faith  at  Nazareth,  and  now  sends  out  the  twelve  into  the 
cities  of  Galilee,  6:  1-13.     Herod,  hearing  of  Christ,  stands 


76  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

in  awe  of  him,  believing  him  to  be  John  the  Baptist,  whom 
he  beheaded,  6:  14-29.  Withdrawing  with  the  twelve  to  a 
desert  place,  He  feeds  the  five  thousand,  and  after  that 
shows  his  power  over  nature  by  walking  on  the  sea,  6 :  30-56. 
The  Pharisees  accost  him,  because  his  disciples  eat  bread 
with  unclean  hands,  7 :  1-23.  He  now  cures  the  daughter  of 
the  Syro-Phoenician  woman  and  the  deaf  and  dumb  man  at 
Decapolis,  where  He  also  feeds  the  four  thousand,  7 :  24- 
8 :  9.  Once  more  the  Pharisees  ask  him  for  a  sign.  Leaving 
them.  He  restores  the  sight  of  the  blind  man  at  Bethsaida, 
8:10-26. 

///.  The  Claim  of  the  mighty  Worker,  8:27 — 13:37. 
The  Lord  shows  the  necessity  of  his  suffering,  leads  his  dis- 
ciples to  confess  him  as  Messiah,  and  points  out  what  is  re- 
quired of  them,  8 :  27-38.  His  power  and  glory  are  seen  in 
the  transfiguration  and  in  the  miracle  following  this,  9:  1-29. 
Then  follows  a  second  revelation  of  his  future  suffering, 
followed  by  teachings  regarding  humility  and  ofl:"enses, 
9 :  30-50.  In  Perea  Christ,  tempted  by  the  Pharisees,  gives 
his  opinion  on  the  question  of  divorce ;  then  He  blesses  little 
children  and  points  out  the  way  of  life  to  the  young  ruler, 
10:  1-31.  For  the  third  time  He  reveals  his  future  suffering, 
and  prepares  his  disciples  for  a  life  of  service,  10:32-45 
At  Jericho  He  restores  the  sight  of  Bar-timeus.  Next  he 
enters  Jerusalem  amid  loud  hosannas,  curses  the  fig-tree  and 
cleanses  the  temple,  10 :  46 — 1 1 :  26.  In  the  temple  He  reveals 
his  superiority  by  answering  the  questions  of  Pharisees, 
Sadducees  and  Herodians,  and  points  to  himself  as  David's 
Lord,  11:27 — 12:44.  Then  he  speaks  of  his  coming  in 
glory,  13. 

IV.  The  Sacrifice  of  the  mighty  Worker,  14 :  1 — 15  :  47. 
Preparation  is  made  for  Jesus'  death  by  the  Sanhedrin  and 
Judas  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  Mary  of  Bethany  on  the 
other,  14:  1-11.  The  passover  is  eaten  and  the  Lord's  sup- 
per instituted,  14:12-25:  In  Gethsemane  follows  bitter 
agony  and  captivity,  14 :  26-52.    Then  the  Lord  is  tried  and 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK  77 

condemned  by  the  Sanhedrin  and  by  Pilate,  and  finally  He 
is  crucified,  14 :  53 — 15  :  47. 

V.  The  mighty  Worker  as  Conqueror  of  Death,  16 :  1-20. 
Women  go  to  the  grave  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  and  are 
directed  by  the  angels  to  go  to  Galilee,  16:  1-8.  The  Lord 
appears  several  times,  gives  blessed  promises,  and  at  last 
ascends  to  heaven,  14 :  9-20. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

There  are  certain  characteristics  by  which  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  is  distinguished  from  the  other  Gospels : 

1.  The  most  striking  peculiarity  of  the  second  Gospel 
is  its  descriptive  character.  It  is  Mark's  constant  aim  to 
picture  the  scenes  of  which  he  speaks  in  lively  colours. 
There  are  many  minute  observations  in  his  work  that  are  not 
found  in  the  other  Synoptics,  some  of  which  point  to  its 
autoptic  character.  He  mentions  the  look  of  anger  that 
Christ  cast  on  the  hypocrites  about  him,  3:5;  relates  the 
miracles,  performed  immediately  after  the  transfiguration, 
with  greater  circumstantiality  than  the  other  Gospels,  9 : 9- 
29 ;  tells  of  Jesus  taking  little  children  in  his  arms  and  bless- 
ing them,  9 :  36 ;  10:16;  remarks  that  Jesus,  looking  at  the 
young  ruler,  loved  him,  10:  21,  etc. 

2.  This  Gospel  contains  comparatively  little  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus ;  it  rather  brings  out  the  greatness  of  our  Lord 
by  pointing  to  his  mighty  works,  and  in  doing  this  does  not 
follow  the  exact  chronological  order.  Teaching  is  subordin- 
ate to  action,  though  we  cannot  maintain  that  it  is  ignored 
altogether.  Mark,  though  considerably  smaller  than  Matt- 
hew, contains  all  the  miracles  narrated  by  the  latter  except 
five,  and  besides  has  three  that  are  not  found  in  Matthew. 
Of  the  eighteen  miracles  in  Luke,  Mark  has  twelve  and  four 
others  above  this  number. 

3.  In  the  Gospel  of  Mark  several  words  of  Christ  that 
were  directed  against  the  Jews  are  left  out,  such  as  we  find 
in  Mt.  3:7-10;  8:5-13;   15:24,  etc.     On  the  other  hand 


78  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

more  Jewish  customs  and  Aramaic  words  are  explained  than 
in  the  first  Gospel,  f .  i.  2 :  18 ;  7 :  3 ;  14 :  12  ;  15  :  6,  42 ;  3 :  17 ; 
5  :  41 ;  7 :  11,  34 ;  14 :  36.  The  argument  from  prophecy  has 
not  the  large  place  here  that  it  has  in  Matthew. 

4.  The  style  of  Mark  is  more  lively  than  that  of  Matt- 
hew, though  not  as  smooth.  He  delights  in  using  words  hke 
eiiOu?  or  euGewq  and  tcoXu?,  prefers  the  use  of  the  present 
and  the  imperfect  to  that  of  the  aorist,  and  often  uses  the 
periphrastic  sivat  with  a  participle  instead  of  the  finite  verb. 
There  are  several  Latinisms  found  in  his  Gospel,  as 
xevTupt'wv  xopBavTY)?,  xpa^^axo?,  TrpatTwptov,  UTCSitouXaTwp  and 
(fpaYsXXouv. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

Just  as  in  the  case  of  Matthew  we  are  entirely  dependent 
on  external  testimony  for  the  name  of  the  author  of  the 
second  Gospel.  And  the  voice  of  antiquity  is  unanimous  in 
ascribing  it  to  Mark.  The  most  ancient  testimony  to  this 
effect  is  that  of  Papias,  who  says :  "Mark,  the  interpreter 
of  Peter,  wrote  down  carefully  all  that  he  recollected,  though 
he  did  not  [record]  in  order  that  which  was  either  said  or 
done  by  Christ.  For  he  neither  heard  the  Lord  nor  followed 
him ;  but  subsequently,  as  I  have  said,  [attached  himself  to] 
Peter,  who  used  to  frame  his  teaching  to  meet  the  [imme- 
diate] wants  [of  his  hearers]  ;  and  not  as  making  a  con- 
nected narrative  of  the  Lord's  discourses.  So  Mark  com- 
mitted no  error,  as  he  wrote  down  some  particulars  just  as 
he  called  them  to  mind.  For  he  took  heed  to  one  thing — to 
omit  none  of  the  facts  that  he  heard,  and  to  state  nothing 
falsely  in  [his  narrative]  of  them."  Several  other  church 
fathers,  such  as  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertul- 
Han,  Origen,  Jerome,  Eusebius,  e.  a.,  follow  in  his  wake ; 
there  is  not  a  dissentient  voice. 

We  cannot  glean  a  single  hint  from  the  Gospel  itself  as 
to  the  identity  of  the  author.  It  may  be  that  the  obscure 
young  man  who  followed  Jesus  in  the  night  of  his  betrayal. 
14:  51,  52,  and  who,  stripped  of  his  garment  fled  naked  in 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK  79 

the  darkness  of  night,  was  the  author  himself.  The  house 
of  Mark's  mother  was  at  least  in  later  time  a  rendezvous 
for  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  Acts  12 :  12 ;  so  that  it  is  not 
improbable  that  Jesus  and  his  disciples  ate  the  Paschal  sup- 
per there,  and  that  Mark,  hearing  them  depart,  left  his  bed 
and  stole  after  them.  This  would  immediately  explain  the 
acquaintance  of  the  author  with  this  interesting  fact. 

Some  scholars  have  expressed  doubt  as  to  the  identity 
of  Mark,  the  evangelist,  and  John  Mark,  the  companion  of 
Barnabas  and  Paul.  The  general  consensus  of  opinion,  how- 
ever, favors  this.  Proceeding  on  the  assumption  that  this 
view  is  correct,  we  find  Mark  mentioned  first  in  connection 
with  Peter's  deliverance  from  prison  in  44  A.  D.  After 
leaving  the  prison  walls  the  apostle  went  to  "the  house  of 
Mary,  the  mother  of  John,  whose  surname  was  Mark," 
Acts  12 :  12.  From  the  way  in  which  Luke  introduces  his 
mother  we  gather  that  Mark  was  a  well  known  person,  when 
the  Acts  were  written.  The  fact  that  Peter  calls  him  his 
son,  I  Peter  5:13  naturally  leads  to  the  supposition  that  in 
his  early  years  he  had  frequent  intercourse  with  the  apostle 
and  was  through  the  instrumentality  of  Peter  led  to  a  saving 
knowledge  of  the  truth.  He  was  a  cousin  of  Barnabas  and 
hence  a  Jew,  probably  even  of  a  priestly  family,  Acts  4:  36. 
When  Barnabas  and  Paul  set  out  on  their  first  missionary 
journey,  Mark  accompanied  them  until  they  came  to 
Pamphylia,  when  for  some  unknown,  but  as  it  seems  repre- 
hensible reason,  he  turned  back.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
second  missionary  journey  he  was  minded  to  accompany  the 
apostles  again,  but  Paul  positively  refused  to  accept  his 
services.  He  now  accompanied  his  uncle  to  Cyprus.  When 
we  next  hear  of  Mark,  about  ten  years  later,  he  is  spoken  of 
by  Paul  as  one  of  those  few  "fellow-laborers  that  have  been 
a  consolation  to  him,"  Col.  4:10;  Philem.  24.  In  his  last 
letter  the  apostle  speaks  of  Mark  once  more,  and  in  such  a 
laudatory  manner  as  to  prove  that  Mark  has  fully  regained 
his  confidence,  II  Tim.  4:11.    The  last  we  hear  of  Mark  in 


80  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Scripture  is,  when  Peter  sends  the  greetings  of  Mark,  his 
son,  to  the  Christians  in  Asia  Minor,  I  Peter  5 :  13.  These 
four  passages  lead  us  to  the  following  construction  of  his 
later  history :  He  was  with  Paul  during  the  apostle's  first 
imprisonment  at  Rome  and  then  intended  to  visit  the  con- 
gregation of  Colossae.  We  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
he  carried  out  this  purpose.  After  Paul's  release  Mark  was 
at  Rome  with  Peter,  who  in  writing  to  the  Christians  of  Asia 
Minor  assumes  that  they  know  Mark.  Apparently  he  made 
another  visit  to  Asia  Minor,  since  Paul  requests  Timothy, 
II  Tim.  4:11  to  take  Mark  with  him,  when  he  comes  to 
Rome.  After  the  death  of  Peter  he  is  said  to  have  visited 
Alexandria,  where  he  was  the  first  to  found  Christian 
churches,  and  finally  died  a  martyr's  death.  This  tradition, 
though  old,  is  not  without  suspicion. 

It  seems  that  Mark  was  "like  Peter  more  a  man  of  action 
than  of  deep  and  abiding  principle,  a  man  of  fervor  and  en- 
thusiasm rather  than  of  persevering  effort ;  but  he  was  trans- 
fused by  the  power  of  the  same  Christ  who  transfused  Peter 
into  the  man  of  rapid,  continued  and  effective  effort  in  the 
missionary  work  of  the  Church."  Gregory,  Why  Four  Gos- 
pels, p.  163. 

The  relation  of  Mark  to  Peter  deserves  special  attention. 
Scripture  speaks  of  this  in  the  two  places  already  mentioned, 
and  tradition  abundantly  testifies  to  it.  Papias  says  that 
"Mark  was  Peter's  interpreter  and  wrote  down  carefully 
all  that  he  recollected."  Clement  of  Alexandria  also  says 
that  he  wrote  down  the  discourses  of  Peter,  as  he  remem- 
bered them.  Irenaeus,  Tertullian  and  Jerome  all  style  Mark 
"the  interpreter  of  Peter."  Tertullian  even  says  that  "the 
Gospel  published  by  Mark  may  be  reckoned  Peter's,  whose 
interpreter  he  was."  And  Origen  still  stronger :  "Mark 
wrote  his  Gospel  according  to  the  dictates  of  Peter."  Simi- 
larly Athanasius.  All  these  testimonies  agree  in  asserting 
that  Mark  was  dependent  on  Peter  in  writing  his  Gospel; 
they  disagree,  however,  as  to  the  degree  of  dependence, 
some  claiming  merely  that  Mark  recorded  what  he  remem- 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK  81 

bered  of  Peter's  preaching,  and  others,  that  he  wrote  what 
Peter  dictated.    Which  representation  is  the  true  one  ? 

The  title  of  the  Gospel  is  against  the  dictation  theory,  for 
if  Peter  had  dictated  the  Gospel,  it  would  in  all  probability 
have  been  called  by  his  name,  just  as  the  Epistles  dictated 
by  Paul  are  universally  ascribed  to  him.  On  the  other  hand 
the  autoptic  touches  in  the  Gospel  make  it  probable  that  in 
some  parts  of  his  work  Mark  employed  the  very  words  of 
Peter ;  they  also  suggest  a  possible  basis  for  the  later  tradi- 
tion that  Peter  dictated  to  Mark.  However,  it  is  not  im- 
possible that  some  of  the  Church  fathers  accentuated  the 
dependence  of  Mark  on  Peter  unduly,  merely  to  enhance  the 
authority  of  his  work.  The  true  relation  of  the  evangelist 
to  the  apostle  is  expressed  in  the  words :  "Mark  was  the 
interpreter  (ep[jLT]V£UT'n?)  of  Peter."  This  does  not  mean 
that  he  accompanied  Peter  on  his  missionary  journeys  as 
dragoman,  translating  Aramaeic  discourses  into  Greek 
(Davidson),  or  Greek  into  Latin  (Bleek)  ;  but  that  he  was 
Peter's  scholar  and  in  his  Gospel  interprets  i.  e.  sets  forth 
the  doctrine  of  Peter  for  those  who  have  not  heard  the 
apostle. 

The  Gospel  itself  incidentally  testifies  to  the  relation  in 
which  it  stands  to  Peter.  There  are  many  touches  that  indi- 
cate first-hand  knowledge,  as  in  1  :  16-20  ;  1  :29 ;  9 :5  ;  15  :54, 
72;  16:  7.  Some  things  found  in  the  other  Synoptics  are  un- 
expectedly omitted  by  Mark,  as  Peter's  walking  on  the  water, 
Mt.  14 :  29 ;  his  appearance  in  the  incident  of  the  tribute 
money,  Mt.  17:24-27;  the  statement  of  Christ  that  He 
prayed  for  Peter  individually,  Lk.  22 :  32 ;  the  significant 
word  spoken  to  him  as  the  Rock,  Mt.  16 :  18.  In  other  cases 
his  name  is  suppressed,  where  it  is  used  by  Matthew  or 
Luke,  as  7 :  17  cf .  Mt.  15  :  15  ;  14 :  13  cf .  Lk.  22 :  8. 

The  authorship  of  Mark  is  quite  generally  admitted ;  yet 
there  are  some,  such  as  Beischlag  and  Davidson  e.  a.  who 
deny  it.  They  maintain  that  our  present  Gospel  does  not 
tally  with  the  description  of  Papias,  where  he  says  that 


82  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Mark  wrote  down  'the  things  he  heard  of  Peter  "not  in 
order."  Wendt  supposes  that  Papias  had  in  mind  a  series 
of  narratives  that  are  embodied  in  our  present  Gospel,  a 
sort  of  Urmarkus.  But  when  Papias  said  that  the  evange- 
Hst  wrote  "not  in  order,"  he  did  not  say  anything  that  is  not 
true  of  our  Mark,  for  in  it  we  do  not  find  things  in  the  order 
of  their  occurrence.  And  in  ancient  Hterature  there  is  not 
a  single  trace  of  an  Urmarkus. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Readers  and  Purpose.  External  testimony  enlightens 
us  respecting  the  circle  for  which  the  Gospel  of  Mark  was 
intended ;  it  points  to  Rome  and  the  Romans.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  says  that  many  of  the  converts  of  Rome  desired 
of  Mark  that  he  should  write  down  the  discourses  of  Peter. 
Jerome  also  speaks  of  this  "request  of  the  brethren  at 
Rome" ;  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  says :  "Mark  wrote  his 
Gospel  for  the  Italians."  If  we  now  turn  to  the  Gospel 
itself,  we  find  that  it  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  Romans. 
They  were  a  strenuous,  a  very  active  people ;  Mark's  Gospel 
is  pre-eminently  the  Gospel  of  action,  and  is  written  in  a 
brisk  lively  style.  The  fact  that  the  argument  from  prophecy 
holds  an  inferior  place  in  it,  and  that  so  many  Jewish 
customs  and  Aramseic  words  are  explained,  points  away 
from  the  Jews ;  while  the  Latin  words  contained  in  the  gos- 
pel, the  reference  to  the  Roman  manner  of  divorce,  10:  12, 
the  reduction  of  a  coin  to  the  Roman  quadrans,  12 :  42,  the 
knowledge  of  Pilate  presupposed  in  15 :  1  (cf.  Mt.  27:  1  and 
Lk.  3:1),  and  the  introduction  of  Simon  of  Gyrene  as  the 
father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus,  15  :  21  (cf.  Rom.  16:  13), — 
all  point  to  Rome. 

It  stands  to  reason  that  the  purpose  of  Mark  in  writing 
stood  in  the  closest  relation  to  the  circle  of  readers  for 
whom  he  intended  his  Gospel.  It  is  certainly  true,  as  Zahn 
asserts,  that  his  intention  was  to  record  the  beginning 
(apx'o)  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.  the  beginning  of 
its  preaching  and  of  its  course;  but  he  has  this  in  common 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK  83 

with  the  other  Synoptics;  it  is  nothing  distinctive  (cf.  p.  58 
above).  The  theory  of  Hilgenfeld  and  Davidson,  following 
Baur,  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  was  written  to  conciliate  the 
two  opposing  parties  of  the  apostolic  age,  the  Petrine  and  the 
Pauline,  and  therefore  carefully  avoids  the  exclusivism  of 
Matthew  as  well  as  the  universalism  of  Luke  can  only  be 
sustained  by  the  most  forced  and  artificial  interpretations. 
Neither  does  the  gospel  support  the  view  of  Weiss,  that  it 
was  written  at  a  time,  when  the  hope  of  Christ's  second  com- 
ing was  on  the  decline,  and  intended  to  show  that  the  Mes- 
sianic character  of  Jesus'  mission  was  sufficiently  attested  by 
His  earthly  life.  Mark's  aim  was  simply  to  record  the  gos- 
pel narrative  without  any  special  dogmatic  aim,  but  to  do 
this  in  such  a  manner  as  would  be  most  suitable  for  the 
Romans,  the  busy  Romans,  the  people  of  action.  Hence  he 
places  special  emphasis  on  the  acts  of  Christ.  For  those  who 
loved  conquest  and  admired  heroism  he  desired  to  picture 
Christ  as  the  mighty  Conqueror  that  overcame  sin  and  all 
its  consequences,  yea  even  death  itself. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  As  to  the  time  when  Mark  wrote 
his  Gospel  the  witness  of  the  early  Church  is  not  unanimous. 
Irenaeus  says  that  after  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul  Mark 
wrote  down  what  he  had  heard  Peter  preach.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  places  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  before  the 
death  of  Peter,  stating  that,  when  Peter  heard  of  it,  "he 
neither  obstructed  nor  encouraged  the  work."  Jerome  in- 
forms us  that  Peter  "approved  and  published  it  in  our 
churches,  commanding  the  reading  of  it  by  his  own  author- 
ity." Others  say  that  Peter  dictated  to  Mark.  The  question 
to  be  decided  is  therefore,  whether  Mark  wrote  before  or 
after  the  death  of  Peter.  It  is  generally  assumed  that  the 
testimony  of  Irenaeus  is  the  most  trustworthy.  It  is  poss- 
ible that  some  of  the  later  Church  fathers  insisted  on  Mark's 
having  written  the  Gospel  during  the  life  of  Peter,  in  order 
to  clothe  it  with  apostolic  authority.  Zahn  would  harmonize 
the  testimony  of  the  fathers  by  assuming  that  Mark  began 


84  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

his  work  before  and  finished  it  after  the  death  of  the 
apostle ;  and  that  Peter  on  hearing  of  Mark's  venture  at  first 
said  nothing  regarding  it ;  then,  seeing  a  part  of  the  work, 
rejoiced  in  it ;  and  still  later,  when  it  had  almost  reached 
its  perfect  form,  sanctioned  it,  Einl.  II  p.  203. 

Turning  to  the  Gospel  itself,  we  find  that  it  contains  no 
positive  evidence  as  to  the  time  of  its  composition.  Some 
inferred  from  13:24  as  compared  with  Mt.  24:29  that  it 
was  written  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  evan- 
gelist being  conscious  of  the  lapse  of  a  certain  period  be- 
tween that  catastrophe  and  the  day  of  Christ's  return.  But 
the  foundation  is  too  slender  for  the  conclusion.  With 
greater  probability  others  infer  from  13:  14,  "let  him  that 
readeth  understand,"  that  the  destruction  of  the  city  was 
still  a  matter  of  expectation.  This  seems  to  follow  also  from 
Mark's  utter  silence  regarding  that  calamity.  The  probable 
conclusion  is  therefore  that  the  year  70  A.  D.  is  the 
terminus  ad  quern  for  the  composition  of  this  Gospel.  From 
Col.  4 :  10  we  may  infer  that  it  was  written  after  62  A.  D., 
for  if  Paul  had  known  Mark  as  an  evangelist,  he  would  most 
likely  have  introduced  him  as  such.  A  place  of  still  greater 
importance  is  II  Peter  1 :  15.  "Yea  I  will  give  diligence  that 
at  every  time  ye  may  be  able  after  my  decease  to  call  these 
things  to  remembrance."  Here  Peter  seems  to  promise  that 
there  will  be  a  record  of  his  preaching  after  his  demise.  We 
would  therefore  date  the  Gospel  between  67  and  70  A.  D. 
Davidson  without  good  reasons  places  it  in  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century,  about  125  A.  D.  Regarding  the  grounds 
for  his  position,  ( 1 )  that  in  this  Gospel  belief  in  the  divinity 
of  Christ  is  more  pronounced  than  in  the  first  century  ;  and 
(2)  that  the  word  euayyeXtov  is  used  in  a  sense  foreign  to 
the  apostolic  age,  we  merely  remark  that  they  are  both  un- 
proved assumptions. 

The  testimony  of  the  fathers  points,  almost  without  a 
dissenting  voice,  to  Rome  as  the  place,  where  Mark  com- 
posed his  gospel.    Chrysostom,  however,  testifies  that  "Mark 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK  85 

wrote  in  Egypt  at  the  request  of  the  behevers  there.  But  in 
another  statement  he  admits  that  he  really  knows  nothing 
about  it. 

3.  Method.  Augustine  called  Mark  "the  abridger  of 
Matthew,"  assuming  that  the  second  Gospel  was  an  abbre- 
viated compilation  from  the  first.  This  theory  has  since 
been  defended  by  several  scholars  of  the  Tubingen  school, 
but  is  now  abandoned.  The  general  features  of  the  Gospel 
do  not  bear  out  that  view.  Zahn  finds  that  Mark  based  his 
Gospel  both  on  the  oral  communications  of  Peter  and  on  the 
Hebrew  Matthew,  Einl.  II  p.  322.  Davidson  denies  the 
originality  and  priority  of  the  Gospel  by  making  it  depend 
to  a  great  extent  on  Matthew  and  Luke,  Introd.  I  p.  478. 
Salmon  finds  throughout  the  Gospel  many  evidences  of  the 
priority  and  independence  of  Mark,  but  believes  that  in 
other  places  he  is,  with  Matthew  and  Luke,  dependent  on  a 
common  source,  Introd.  p.  155.  The  prevalent  opinion  at 
present  is  that  Mark's  Gospel  was  prior  to  the  other  two, 
though,  at  least  according  to  some,  he  may  have  employed 
the  XoYta  of  Matthew.  But  in  order  to  maintain  this  prior- 
ity its  defenders  have  resorted  to  such  artificial  and  unlikely 
theories  that  they  in  part  defeated  their  own  purpose.  The 
theory  of  an  Urmarkus  has  been  broached,  but  found  little 
acceptance.  The  opinion  of  Dr.  Arthur  Wright  that  we 
must  distinguish  between  a  proto-,  a  deutero-  and  a  trito- 
Mark,  a  distinction  applied  to  oral  tradition  by  him,  is  now 
by  others  applied  to  written  documents.  Cf.  Holdsworth, 
Gospel  Origins  p.  108. 

Here  again  the  great  difference  of  opinion  proves  that  it 
is  quite  impossible  to  trace  in  all  details  the  origin  of  the 
material  found  in  this  Gospel.  The  great  objection  to  sev- 
eral of  the  theories  propounded  is  that  they  seek  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  Mark  in  a  too  mechanical  way.  We  may 
be  certain  of  two  things :  (1)  that  Mark  derived  the  great- 
est part  of  his  material  from  the  preaching  of  Peter  that 
had  gradually  assumed  a  definite  shape  in  his  mind ;  and  (2) 


86  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

that  he  has  recorded  partly  the  ipsissima  verba  of  Peter 
(except  for  the  occasional  change  of  we  into  they),  and 
partly  merely  the  substance  of  the  apostle's  /.•^puYtJi.a  in  a 
form  and  with  interpretations  of  his  own.  For  the  rest  of 
his  material  he  probably  depended  on  the  Hebrew  original 
of  Matthew. 

INTEGRITY. 

The  integrity  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is  generally  main- 
tained, with  the  exception,  however,  of  the  last  twelve 
verses,  regarding  which  there  is  a  great  difference  of  opin- 
ion. The  critical  camp  of  the  past  century  is  just  about 
equally  divided,  although  at  present  the  tide  is  somewhat 
against  these  verses.  The  reasons  for  rejecting  them  are 
both  external  and  internal.  These  verses  are  wanting  in  the 
two  oldest  and  most  valuable  manuscripts,  viz.  the  Sinaitic 
and  the  Vatican.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  and  a  few  others 
state  that  they  were  wanting  in  almost  all  the  Greek 
copies  of  the  gospels  of  their  time.  It  is  possible,  however, 
that  the  testimony  of  Jerome  and  the  rest  resolves  itself 
into  that  of  Eusebius.  This  is  all  but  certain  with  respect 
to  that  of  Jerome,  as  even  Davidson  admits.  They  are 
wanting  also  in  the  important  MS.  k,  representing  the  Afri- 
can text  of  the  old  Latin  Version,  which  has  another  and 
shorter  conclusion,  like  that  in  MS.  L.  They  are  also 
absent  from  some  of  the  best  MSS.  of  the  Armenian  Ver- 
sion. Then  the  style  of  this  section  is  abrupt  and  sententious, 
not  graphic  like  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Gospel.  It  makes  the 
impression  of  a  collection  of  brief  notices,  extracted  from 
larger  accounts  and  loosely  combined.  Its  phraseology  is 
also  peculiar.  Thus  TupwTifi  aa^^axou,  verse  9  is  used  instead 
of  Y]  [Jita  Twv  ca^^axcov,  as  in  16:2.  The  verb  TropeueaOott, 
which  occurs  three  times  in  this  section,  is  not  found  in  the 
body  of  the  Gospel.  Neither  is  the  word  OeaaOat,  16:11,  14. 
Another  unique  feature  is  the  use  of  6  v.upioq  as  a  designa- 
tion of  Christ,  verses  19,  20. 

These  verses  have  also  found  ardent  defenders,  however. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK  87 

among  whom  especially  Dean  Burgon  must  be  named, 
though  he  is  perhaps  a  little  too  positive.  In  his  work  on, 
^'The  last  Twelve  Verses  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark," 
he  put  up  an  able  defense.  The  authenticity  of  this  section 
is  favored  by  the  following  considerations :  It  is  found  in 
most  of  the  uncial  MSS.  and  in  all  the  cursives,  though  some 
of  these  mark  it  with  an  asterisk,  or  indicate  that  it  was 
absent  in  older  copies.  Moreover  its  absence  from  Aleph  and 
E  looks  somewhat  suspicious.  It  is  also  incorporated  in  most 
of  the  ancient  Versions,  of  which  the  Itala,  the  Curatorian 
and  Peshito  Syriac,  and  the  Coptic  are  older  than  any  of 
our  Greek  codices.  All  the  existing  Greek  and  Syriac  lec- 
tionaries,  as  far  as  they  have  now  been  examined,  contain 
these  verses.  Irenaeus  quotes  the  19th  verse  as  a  part  of 
the  Gospel  of  Mark.  Justin  Martyr  too  in  all  probability 
testifies  to  the  authenticity  of  these  verses.  And  several  of 
the  later  fathers,  such  as  Epiphanius,  Ambrose  and  Augus- 
tine certainly  quote  from  them.  And  as  far  as  internal  evi- 
dence is  concerned,  it  seems  very  unlikely  that  Mark  would 
end  his  Gospel  with  the  words  e^o^ouvTO  ^<xp,  without 
recording  a  single  appearance  of  the  Lord.  Moreover  these 
verses  contain  too  many  peculiarities  to  be  a  forgery. 

We  cannot  delay  to  discuss  the  causes  for  the  variation 
of  the  MSS,  nor  to  review  the  different  conclusions  to  which 
scholars  have  come  as  to  the  extent  of  Mark's  Gospel.  They 
who  wish  to  study  the  subject  can  do  so  in  the  work  of 
Burgon,  in  the  Introductions  of  Guericke  and  Salmon  and 
in  Urquhart's  New  Biblical  Guide  VII,  where  this  section  is 
defended ;  and  in  the  work  of  Westcott  and  Hort,  "The 
New  Testament  in  Greek,"  and  in  the  Introductions  of 
Reuss,  Weiss,  Davidson  and  Zahn,  who  reject  it. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  ground  offered  for  the  rejection 
of  these  verses  by  external  testimony  is  rather  slender  and 
uncertain,  while  the  internal  evidence  is  weighty  indeed.  In 
view  of  it  we  are  inclined  to  accept  one  of  two  possible  con- 
clusions :  either  that  Mark  himself  added  these  verses  some 


88  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

time  after  he  had  written  his  Gospel,  possibly  culling  his 
material  from  Matthew  and  Luke ;  or  that  someone  else 
wrote  them  to  complete  the  work.  The  latter  is  favored  by 
the  Armenian  Gospel  that  was  written  in  986  and  was  dis- 
covered by  F.  C.  Conybeare  in  1891,  and  which  has  the 
superscription  above  this  section :  "Of  the  Presbyter  Aris- 
ton."  In  either  case  we  see  no  reason,  however,  to  doubt  the 
canonicity  of  this  part  of  Mark's  Gospel,  though  some  have 
attempted  to  make  this  suspicious  especially  by  pointing  to 
the  unlikely  (  ?)  miracles  of  verses  17,  18.    Cf.  Luke  10:  19. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

Though  the  external  testimony  to  the  canonicity  of 
Mark's  Gospel  is  not  so  abundant  as  that  for  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  yet  it  is  sufficient  to  establish  this  beyond  a  shadow 
of  doubt.  It  is  quoted  by  at  least  two  of  the  apostolic 
fathers,  by  Justin  Martyr  and  by  the  three  great  witnesses 
of  the  end  of  the  second  century,  Irenaeus,  "Clement  of  Alex- 
andria and  Tertullian,  and  is  referred  to  as  a  part  of  the 
Word  of  God  by  several  others.  We  find  no  expressions 
of  doubt  in  the  early  Church. 

The  special  purpose  of  this  Gospel  in  the  canon  is  to 
show  us  Christ  in  his  divine  power,  destroying  the  works  of 
satan,  and  conquering  sin  and  death.  More  than  other  Gos- 
pels it  places  prominently  before  us  the  work  of  Christ  in 
behalf  of  those  that  are  bound  by  the  shackles  of  satan 
and  are  suffering  the  consequences  of  sin.  We  here  see  the 
Lion  out  of  the  tribe  of  Juda,  conquering  and  ever  to  con- 
quer. Mark  is  the  only  one  of  the  evangelists  that  speaks 
of  the  future  Kingdom  of  God  as  coming  with  power,  9:1. 
In  that  way  this  Gospel  has  special  significance  for  the 
Church  of  all  ages.  It  gives  her  the  blessed  assurance  that 
her  future  is  entrusted  to  One  who  has  shown  himself  a 
mighty  Conqueror,  and  who  is  abundantly  able  to  save  to 
the  uttermost  all  who  believe  in  Him, 


The  Gospel  of  Luke. 


CONTENTS. 

Like  the  contents  of  the  previous  Gospels  we  may  also 
divide  those  of  Luke's  into  five  parts : 

/.  The  Advent  of  the  Divine  Man,  1:-4:13.  After 
stating  his  aim  the  evangelist  describes  the  announcement 
from  heaven  of  the  forerunner,  John  the  Baptist,  and  of 
Christ  himself,  and  their  birth  with  the  attendant  circum- 
stances, 1 :  1 — 2 :  20.  Then  he  shows  that  Christ  was  made 
subject  to  the  law  in  circumcision,  in  the  presentation  in  the 
temple,  and  in  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  2 :  21-52.  He  traces 
the  descent  of  the  Son  of  Man  to  Adam,  and  points  out  that 
He  was  prepared  for  his  work  by  baptism  and  temptation, 
3:1^1:13. 

//.  The  Work  of  the  Divine  Man  for  the  Jewish  World, 
4 :  \A — 9 :  50.  In  this  part  we  first  see  Christ  preaching  in  the 
synagogues  of  Nazareth,  Capernaum  and  all  Galilee ;  per- 
forming many  miracles  in  Capernaum  and  by  the  sea  of 
Galilee,  such  as  the  curing  of  Peter's  mother-in-law,  the 
wonderful  draught  of  fishes,  the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  and 
the  healing  of  the  palsied  man ;  calling  Levi  to  follow  him ; 
and  instructing  his  enemies  regarding  his  authority,  his  pur- 
pose, and  the  moral  character  of  his  demands,  as  a  result  of 
which  many  were  amazed  and  Pharisees  and  Scribes  were 
filled  with  hatred,  4 :  \A — 6 :  11.  After  a  night  of  prayer  the 
Lord  now  chooses  his  twelve  disciples  and  proclaims  the 
constitution  of  his  Kingdom,  6:  12-49.  He  cures  the  cen- 
turion's servant,  raises  the  widow's  son,  and  gives  instruc- 
tion by  word  and  example  regarding  the  nature  of  his  work 
and  the  character  of  the  subjects  of  his  Kingdom,  7:  1-49. 
The  origin  of  the  Kingdom  is  now  illustrated  in  the  parable 


90  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

of  the  sower,  and  the  divine  power  of  Christ  over  both  the 
natural  and  the  spiritual  world  is  shown  in  the  stilling  of  the 
storm,  in  the  deliverance  of  the  Gadarene  demoniac,  in  his 
curing  the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood  and  raising  the 
daughter  of  Jairus,  8:  1-56.  The  twelve  are  sent  out  and 
on  their  return  Christ  retires  with  them  to  a  desert  place, 
where  He  miraculously  feeds  the  five  thousand,  after  which 
He  once  and  again  announced  his  future  suffering  and  was 
transfigured  on  the  Mount,  9:  1-50. 

///.  The  Work  of  the  Divine  Man  for  the  Gentiles, 
9:51 — 18:30.  Jesus  in  traveling  towards  Jerusalem  sends 
messengers  before  him,  but  these  are  rejected  by  the  Samar- 
itans ;  then  He  sends  out  the  seventy,  who  return  with  a  good 
report,  teaches  that  neighborly  love  is  not  to  be  restricted  to 
the  Jews  (good  Samaritan),  and  gives  his  disciples  instruc- 
tion regarding  prayer,  9:51 — 11:13.  The  Pharisees  now 
claim  that  Christ  casts  out  the  devils  through  Beelzebub,  in 
answer  to  which  He  pictures  their  condition,  and  when  they 
tempt  him  in  various  ways,  pronounces  his  woe  upon  them 
and  warns  his  disciples  against  them,  1 1 :  1^1 — 12  :  12.  In  con- 
nection with  the  parable  of  the  rich  fool  the  Lord  warns 
against  covetousness  and  anxious  care,  and  bids  his  disciples 
to  be  prepared  for  the  day  of  his  coming,  12:  13-53.  Sit- 
ting at  meat  in  the  house  of  a  Pharisee,  He  teaches  those 
present  true  mercy,  true  humility,  true  hospitality,  and  the 
fact  that  they,  having  refused  the  supper  of  the  Lord,  will 
be  rejected,  14:  1-24.  Next  the  necessity  of  self-denial  is 
impressed  on  those  that  would  follow  Jesus,  and  in  three 
parables  the  Pharisees  are  made  acquainted  with  the  real 
purpose  of  his  coming,  14 :  25 — 15  :  32.  The  disciples  are  in- 
structed in  the  careful  use  of  their  earthly  possessions,  and 
to  the  Pharisees  the  law  of  retribution  is  explained,  16:  1-31. 
In  various  ways  the  Lord  impresses  on  his  followers  the 
necessity  of  a  forgiving  spirit,  of  humility,  of  faith  and 
gratitude,  of  constant  prayer  with  a  view  to  the  unexpected 
character  of  his  coming,  of  trusting  in  God  and  of  self- 
denial, — all  ending  in  everlasting  salvation,  17:  1 — 18:  30. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE  91 

IV.  The  Sacrifice  of  the  Divine  Man  for  all  Mankind, 
18:31 — 23  :49.  Jesus  announces  once  more  his  future  suffer- 
ing and  death,  at  Jericho  restores  the  sight  of  a  blind  man 
and  calls  Zaccheus,  and  points  out  to  his  followers  that  his 
Kingdom  would  not  immediately  come,  18 :  32 — 19 :  27.  Tri- 
umphantly He  enters  Jerusalem,  where  He  cleanses  the 
temple,  answers  the  questions  of  the  Chief  Priests,  the 
Scribes,  the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees,  and  instructs  his 
followers  regarding  his  future  coming,  19:28 — 21  :38.  After 
eating  the  passover  with  his  disciples  He  was  betrayed,  con- 
demned and  crucified,  22 :  1 — 23  :  56. 

V.  The  Divine  Man  Saviour  of  all  Nations,  24.  On  the 
morning  of  the  first  day  Christ  arose ;  women  seek  him  in 
the  grave ;  He  appears  to  two  of  his  disciples  on  the  way 
to  Emmaus,  to  the  eleven,  and  finally  departs  from  them 
with  the  promise  of  the  Spirit. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

The  following  are  the  most  important  characteristics  of 
the  third  Gospel : 

1.  In  point  of  completeness  it  surpasses  the  other  Synop- 
tics, beginning,  as  it  does,  with  a  detailed  narrative  of  the 
birth  of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  Christ  himself,  and  ending 
with  a  record  of  the  ascension  from  the  Mount  of  Olives. 
In  distinction  from  Matthew  and  Mark  this  Gospel  even 
contains  an  allusion  to  the  promise  of  the  Father,  24 :  29, 
and  thus  points  beyond  the  old  dispensation  to  the  new  that 
would  be  ushered  in  by  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
detailed  narrative  of  Christ's  going  to  Jerusalem  in  9:51- 
18:  14  is  also  peculiar  to  this  gospel. 

2.  Christ  is  set  before  us  in  this  Gospel  as  the  perfect 
Man  with  wide  sympathies.  The  genealogy  of  Jesus  is 
traced  back  through  David  and  Abraham  to  Adam,  our  com- 
mon progenitor,  thus  presenting  him  as  one  of  our  race.  We 
are  told  of  the  truly  human  development  both  in  body  and 
spirit  of  Jesus  in  2 :  40-52,  and  of  his  dependence  on  prayer 


92  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

in  the  most  important  crises  of  His  life,  3  :  21  ;  9 :  29.  Those 
features  of  the  Lord's  miracles  of  healing  are  clearly  brought 
out  that  show  his  great  sympathy.  "Peter's  mother-in-law 
suffers  from  a  great  fever ;  and  the  leper  is  full  of  leprosy. 
The  hand  restored  on  the  sabbath  is  the  right  hand,  the  cen- 
turion's servant  is  one  dear  to  him,  the  son  of  the  widow  of 
Nain,  is  an  only  son,  the  daughter  of  Jairus  an  only  daugh- 
ter, the  epileptic  boy  at  the  hill  of  transfiguration  is  an  only 
child."    Bruce,  The  Expositor's  Greek  Testament  I  p.  47. 

3.  Another  feature  of  this  Gospel  is  its  universality.  It 
comes  nearer  than  other  Gospels  to  the  Pauline  doctrine  of 
salvation  for  all  the  world,  and  of  salvation  by  faith,  without 
the  works  of  the  law.  In  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  Christ 
points  out  that  God  might  again  deal  with  the  Jews  as  He 
had  done  in  the  days  of  Elijah  and  Elishah,  4:25-27;  He 
declares  that  the  faith  of  the  centurion  was  greater  than  any 
He  had  found  in  Israel,  7:2-10;  sends  messengers  before 
his  face  into  Samaria,  9 :  52-56 ;  demands  love  of  Israel 
even  for  the  Samaritans,  10 :  30-37 ;  heals  the  Samaritan 
leper  as  well  as  the  others,  17:  11-19;  and  speaks  the  signi- 
ficant word :  "Blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  word  of  God 
and  keep  it,  11:  28. 

4.  More  than  the  other  evangelists  Luke  relates  his  nar- 
rative to  contemporaneous  history  and  indicates  the  time  of 
the  occurrences.  It  was  in  the  days  of  king  Herod  that  the 
birth  of  John  the  Baptist  and  Christ  was  announced,  1:1, 
26;  during  the  reign  of  Caesar  Augustus,  that  Christ  was 
born,  2:1;  while  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria,  that  the 
taxation  took  place,  2:2;  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberias, 
etc.,  that  Christ  was  baptized  and  began  his  public  ministry, 
3:1,2.  Notice  also  the  following  chronological  indications : 
1:36,  56,  59;  2:42;  3:23;  9:28,  2>7,  51;  22:1,  7.  We 
should  not  infer  from  the  foregoing,  however,  that  Luke 
furnishes  us  with  a  chronological  record  of  the  Lord's  public 
ministry.  Very  indefinite  expressions  of  time  are  found 
throughout  the  Gospel,  as:  "and  it  came  to  pass,  when  he 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE  93 

was  in  a  certain  city,"  5:12;  "and  it  came  to  pass  on  a 
certain  day,"  5:  17;  "and  it  came  to  pass  also  on  another 
sabbath,"  6 :  6,  etc. 

5.  Luke  writes  a  purer  Greek  than  any  of  the  other 
evangelists,  but  this  is  evident  only,  where  he  does  not 
closely  follow  his  sources.  The  Greek  of  the  preface  is  of 
remarkable  purity,  but  aside  from  this  the  first  and  second 
chapters  are  full  of  Hebraisms.  Of  the  rest  of  the  Gospel 
some  parts  approach  very  closely  to  classical  Greek,  while 
others  are  tinged  with  Hebrew  expressions.  Plummer  says  : 
"The  author  of  the  Third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  is  the  most 
versatile  of  all  the  New  Testament  writers.  He  can  be  as 
Hebraistic  as  the  LXX,  and  as  free  from  Hebraisms  as 
Plutarch."  Comm.  on  Luke  in  International  Crit.  Comm. 
p.  XLIX.  His  style  is  also  very  picturesque ;  he  tries  to 
make  us  see  things,  just  as  the  eyewitnesses  saw  them. 
Moreover  his  Gospel  contains  312  words  that  are  peculiar 
to  him.  Several  of  these  are  ai:aB,  XeYOjisva.  There  are  also 
five  Latin  words,  viz.  BYjvaptov,  Xsyswv,  aouSaptov,  auaapiov 
and  pioSto?.  Cf.  lists  in  Plummer's  Comm.  and  Davidson's 
Introd. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

Though  the  author  speaks  of  himself  explicitly  in  the 
preface  of  his  Gospel,  we  are  dependent  on  tradition  for 
his  name.  And  here  again  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  is 
unanimous.  Irenaeus  asserts  that  "Luke,  the  companion  of 
Paul,  put  down  in  a  book  the  Gospel  preached  by  him." 
With  this  agrees  the  testimony  of  Origen,  Eusebius, 
Athanasius,  Gregory,  Nazianze,  Jerome,  e.  a. 

The  Gospel  itself  offers  us  no  direct  collateral  testimony. 
Yet  there  are  certain  features  that  strengthen  our  belief  in 
the  authorship  of  Luke.  In  the  first  place  the  writer  evi- 
dently looks  at  things  with  the  eye  of  a  physician.  In  1882 
Dr.  Hobart  published  a  work  on,  The  Medical  Language  of 
St.  Luke,  showing  that  in  many  instances  the  evangelist  uses 
the  technical  language  that  was  also  used  by  Greek  medical 


94  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

writers,  as  xapaXeXuixevo?,  5:18,  24  (the  other  Gospels  have 
irapaXuTCXo?)  ;  auvexo[i£VY]  Tcupextp  [xsYaXw,  4:38;  eaxY]  t) 
puat?  Tou  at[jLaTOi;,  8:44  (cf.  Mt.  5:29);  ovexaOctrsv,  7:14, 
Luke  carefully  distinguishes  demoniacal  possession  from 
disease,  4:18;  13:32;  states  exactly  the  age  of  the  dying 
person,  8:42;  and  the  duration  of  the  affliction  in  13:  11. 
He  only  relates  the  miracle  of  the  healing  of  Malchus'  ear. 
All  these  things  point  to  Luke,  "the  beloved  physician." 

In  the  second  place  there  is  what  has  been  called  the 
Paulinism  of  Luke.  This  has  sometimes  been  emphasized 
unduly,  no  doubt,  but  it  certainly  is  a  characteristic  feature 
of  the  third  Gospel,  and  is  just  what  we  would  expect  in  a 
writing  of  Paul's  companion. 

In  the  third  place  we  find  great  similarity  between  this 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  If  Luke  wrote  the 
latter,  he  also  composed  the  former.  The  general  opinion 
is  expressed  by  Knowling  in  his  introduction  to  the  book 
of  Acts,  in  the  Expositor's  Greek  Testament  II  p.  3  :  "Who- 
ever wrote  the  Acts  wrote  also  the  Gospel  which  bears  the 
name  of  Luke."  It  is  true  that  there  are  more  Hebraisms 
in  the  Gospel  than  in  Acts,  but  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  writer  in  composing  the  former  was  more  dependent  on 
written  sources  than  he  was  in  writing  the  latter. 

The  only  certain  knowledge  we  have  of  Luke  is  derived 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  from  a  few  passages  in 
the  Epistles  of  Paul.  From  Col.  4:11,  14  it  appears  that 
he  was  not  a  Jew  and  that  his  wordly  calling  was  that  of  a 
physician.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  state  that  he  was  originally 
from  Antioch  in  Syria,  which  may  be  true ;  but  it  is  also 
possible  that  their  statement  is  due  to  a  mistaken  derivation 
of  the  name  Luke  from  Lucius  (cf.  Acts  13:  1)  instead  of 
from  Lucanus.  The  testimony  of  Origen  makes  us  suspect 
this.  Theophylact  and  Euthymius  had  the  mistaken  opinion 
that  he  was  one  of  the  Seventy  sent  out  by  our  Lord.  This 
is  refuted  by  the  preface  of  the  Gospel,  where  Luke  clearly 
distinguishes  himself  from  those  that  saw  and  heard  the 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE  95 

Lord.  Apparently  the  evangelist  joined  the  company  of 
Paul  and  his  co-laborers  on  the  second  missionary  journey 
at  Troas.  This  may  be  inferred  from  the  beginning  of  the 
we-sections  in  Acts  16:  10.  The  first  one  of  these  sections 
ends  at  16:  17,  so  that  Luke  probably  remained  at  Philippi. 
He  stayed  there,  so  it  seems,  until  Paul  returned  from 
Greece  on  his  third  missionary  journey,  for  in  Acts  20:5 
we  suddenly  come  upon  the  plural  pronoun  of  the  first  per- 
son again.  Then  he  evidently  accompanied  the  apostle  to 
Jerusalem,  20:6,  13,  14,  15;  21  :  1-17.  In  all  probability  he 
was  with  Paul  at  Caesarea,  27:  1,  from  where  he  accom- 
panied the  apostle  to  Rome,  27:1 — 28:16.  He  remained 
at  Rome  during  the  first  imprisonment,  Col.  4:  14;  Philem. 
24,  and  was  according  to  these  passages  a  beloved  friend  and 
fellow-laborer  of  the  apostle.  And  when  the  great  mission- 
ary of  the  gentiles  was  imprisoned  for  the  second  time,  Luke 
was  the  only  one  with  him,  II  Tim.  4:11,  and  thus  gave 
evidence  of  his  great  attachment  to  Paul.  The  last  part  of 
Luke's  life  is  involved  in  obscurity.  Nothing  certain  can 
be  gathered  from  the  conflicting  testimony  of  the  fathers. 
Some  claim  that  he  gained  a  martyr's  crown ;  others,  that 
he  died  a  natural  death. 

The  question  must  be  asked,  whether  Paul  was  in  any 
way  connected  with  the  composition  of  the  third  Gospel. 
The  testimony  of  the  early  Church  is  very  uncertain  on  this 
point.  Tertullian  says :  "Luke's  digest  is  often  ascribed  to 
Paul.  And  indeed  it  is  easy  to  take  that  for  the  master's 
which  is  published  by  the  disciples."  According  to  Euse- 
bius,  "Luke  hath  delivered  in  his  Gospel  a  certain  amount 
of  such  things  as  he  had  been  assured  of  by  his  intimate 
acquaintance  and  familiarity  with  Paul,  and  his  connection 
with  the  other  apostles."  With  this  the  testimony  of  Jerome 
agrees.  Athanasius  states  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  dic- 
tated by  the  apostle  Paul.  In  view  of  the  preface  of  the 
gospel  we  may  be  sure  that  the  Church  fathers  exaggerate 
the  influence  of  Paul  in  the  composition  of  this  Gospel,  poss- 
ibly to  give  it  apostolic  authority.     Paul's  relation  to  the 


96  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

third  Gospel  differs  from  that  of  Peter  to  the  second ;  it  is 
not  so  close.  Luke  did  not  simply  write  what  he  remem- 
bered of  the  preaching  of  Paul,  much  less  did  he  write 
according  to  the  dictation  of  the  apostle,  for  he  himself  says 
that  he  traced  everything  from  the  beginning  and  speaks  of 
both  oral  and  written  sources  that  were  at  his  command. 
Among  these  oral  sources  we  must,  of  course,  also  reckon 
the  preaching  of  Paul.  That  the  great  apostle  did  influence 
Luke's  representation  of  "the  beginning  of  the  Gospel,"  is 
very  evident.  There  are  175  words  and  expressions  in  the 
gospel  that  are  peculiar  to  Luke  and  Paul.  Cf.  Plummer  p. 
LIV.  Besides,  as  we  have  already  seen,  some  of  the  leading 
ideas  of  Paul  are  found  in  the  third  gospel,  such  as  the  uni- 
versality of  the  Gospel,  the  necessity  of  faith,  and  the  use 
of  the  word  Stxatow  in  a  forensic  sense,  7:29;  10:29; 
16:  15;  18:  14.  A  striking  resemblance  exists  also  between 
Luke's  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
22:  19-20.  and  Paul's  memoir  of  this  in  I  Cor.  11:23-25, 
but  this  may  be  due  to  the  use  of  a  common  source. 

The  Lukan  authorship  of  the  Gospel  was  generally  ac- 
cepted up  to  the  time,  when  Rationalism  began  its  attacks 
on  the  books  of  the  Bible.  The  Tubingen  school,  notably 
F.  C.  Baur,  maintained  that  the  Gospel  of  Marcion,  who 
began  to  teach  at  Rome  in  140  A.  D.,  was  the  original  of 
our  Gospel.  Others  followed  where  Baur  led.  In  later 
years,  however,  critical  opinion  wheeled  about  completely 
and  the  opinion  is  generally  held  that  Marcion's  Gospel  is 
a  mutilation  of  Luke's,  though  in  some  parts  it  may  repre- 
sent another  and  even  an  older  text.  This,  of  course,  made 
it  possible  again  to  maintain  the  authorship  of  Luke.  But 
even  now  there  are  several  German  scholars  who  doubt 
that  Luke  wrote  the  Gospel,  and  Harnack's  protest  against 
their  contention  seems  ineffective.  Their  objections  to  the 
Lukan  authorship  are  based  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
rather  than  on  the  Gospel,  but,  as  has  been  intimated,  the 
two  stand  or  fall  together.  We  shall  consider  these  ob- 
jections, when  we  treat  of  Acts. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE  97 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Readers  and  Purpose.  The  Gospel  of  Luke  was  first 
of  all  intended  for  Theophilus,  who  is  addressed  as  "most 
excellent  Theophilus"  in  1:3,  and  is  also  mentioned  in  Acts 
1:1.  We  have  no  means  of  determining  who  this  Theo- 
philus was.  It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  the  name 
was  a  general  one,  applied  to  every  Christian,  as  a  beloved 
one  or  a  friend  of  God.  But  the  general  opinion  now  is, 
and  rightly  so,  that  it  is  the  name  of  an  individual,  prob- 
ably a  Greek.  The  fact  that  he  is  addressed  by  Luke  in  the 
same  manner  as  Felix,  23  :  26,  24 :  3,  and  Festus,  26 :  25  are 
addressed,  led  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  a  person  of  high 
station.  Baljon  thinks  he  was  undoubtedly  a  Gentile  Chris- 
tian, while  Zahn  regards  him  as  a  Gentile  who  had  not  yet 
accepted  Christ,  since  Luke  would  have  addressed  a  brother 
differently.  It  is  generally  agreed,  however,  that  the  Gospel 
was  not  intended  for  Theophilus  only,  but  was  simply  ad- 
dressed to  him  as  the  representative  of  a  large  circle  of 
readers.  Who  were  these  first  readers  of  the  gospel?  Origen 
says  that  the  third  gospel  was  composed  "for  the  sake  of  the 
Gentile  converts ;"  Gregory  Nazianze,  more  definitely : 
"Luke  wrote  for  the  Greeks."  Now  it  is  quite  evident  from 
the  gospel  itself  that  the  evangelist  is  not  writing  for  the 
Jews.  He  never  gives  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  Aramaeic 
language ;  instead  of  a[xr)v  'ki-^m  he  has  (zXtjOw?  Xeyw,  9 :27 ; 
12:44;  21:3;  for  ^pix\i\t.iXT:e.lq  he  uses  vo(jLt/.6t,  BtSa^xaXo?, 
2:46;  7:30;  10:25;  11:45;  and  of  many  places  in  Pales- 
tine he  gives  a  nearer  definition.  It  is  very  probable  that 
that  Gospel  of  Luke  was  intended  for  the  Greeks,  because 
Paul  labored  primarily  among  them,  Theophilus  was  in  all 
probability  a  Greek,  the  preface  of  the  gospel  is  in  many 
respects  like  those  found  in  Greek  historians,  and  the  whole 
Gospel  is  remarkably  adjusted  to  the  needs  of  the  Greeks. 
Cf.  for  this  last  point  especially  Gregory,  Why  Four  Gospels 
p.  207  flf. 

The  purpose  of  Luke  is  clearly  stated  in  the  preface,  viz. 


98  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

that  Theophilus  and  the  Gentile  readers  in  general  might 
know  the  certainty  of  those  things,  wherein  they  had  been 
instructed,  1:4.  It  is  his  desire  to  present  clearly  the  truth 
of  all  Gospel  facts.  In  order  to  do  this,  he  aims  at  fulness 
of  treatment ;  traces  all  things  from  the  beginning ;  writes 
an  orderly  account  of  all  that  has  happened,  recording  the 
sayings  of  the  Lord  in  their  original  setting  more  than  the 
other  evangelists  do,  thus  promoting  definiteness  and 
strengthening  his  representation  of  the  reality  of  things ; 
mentions  the  names  not  only  of  the  principal  actors  in  the 
Gospel  history,  but  also  those  of  others  that  were  in  any 
way  connected  with  it,  2:1,  2 ;  3:1,  2 ;  7 :  40 ;  8:3;  brings 
the  Gospel  facts  in  relation  with  secular  history,  2:1,  2; 
3:1,  2;  and  describes  carefully  the  impression  which  the 
teachings  of  Christ  made,  4:15,  22,  36;  5:8,  25;  6:11; 
7:29;  8:37;  18:43;  19:37.  From  the  contents  of  the 
Gospel  we  may  further  gather  that  it  was  the  author's  nearer 
purpose  to  present  Christ  in  a  very  acceptable  way  to  the 
Greeks,  viz.  as  the  perfect  man  (cf.  p.  91  above),  as  the 
sympathetic  friend  of  the  afiflicted  and  the  poor,  1 :  52 ; 
2 :  7  ;  4 :  18 ;  6 :  20 ;  12 :  15  ff.  16 :  19,  etc.,  and  as  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,  seeking  those  that  are  lost,  7  :  36-50  ;  15  :  1-32 ; 
18:9-14;  19:  1-10;  23:  43. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  Tradition  tells  us  very  little  regard- 
ing the  time,  when  Luke  wrote  his  Gospel.  According  to 
Eusebius  Clement  of  Alexandria  received  a  tradition  from 
presbyters  of  more  ancient  times  "that  the  Gospels  con- 
taining the  genealogies  were  written  first."  Theophylact 
says:  "Luke  wrote  fifteen  years  after  Christ's  ascension." 
The  testimony  of  Euthymius  is  to  the  same  effect,  while 
Eutichius  states  that  Luke  wrote  his  Gospel  in  the  time  of 
Nero.  According  to  these  testimonies  the  evangelist  com- 
posed his  Gospel  possibly  as  early  as  54,  and  certainly  not 
later  than  68  A.  D. 

Internal  evidence  is  even  more  uncertain.  Some  infer 
from  21 :  24  that  Luke  realized  that  a  certain  time  was  to 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE  99 

elapse  between  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  final 
judgment,  and  therefore  wrote  after  the  destruction  of  the 
Holy  City,  a  very  inconclusive  argument  indeed,  since  this 
is  a  prophetic  word  of  Christ.  We  might  argue  in  favor  of 
a  date  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  from  the  absence 
of  the  warning  note  that  is  found  in  both  Matthew  and 
Mark,  but  being  an  argument  from  silence  even  that  does 
not  prove  the  point.  Several  scholars,  especially  of  the 
Tubingen  school,  date  the  Gospel  near  the  end  of  the  first 
or  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  The  main  argu- 
ment for  this  date  is  the  supposed  fact  that  Luke  is  in  some 
parts  of  his  Gospel  dependent  on  the  Antiquities  of 
Josephus,  a  rather  chimerical  idea.  Both  Zahn  and  Weiss 
are  of  the  opinion  that  Luke  wrote  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  but  not  later  than  the  year  80  A.  D.  Zahn  settled 
on  this  terminus  ad  quem,  because  he  considers  it  likely  that 
Luke  was  a  member  of  the  Antiochian  congregation  as  early 
as  the  year  40  A.  D.,  and  would  therefore  be  very  old  in 
the  year  80  A.  D. ;  Weiss,  since  the  evangelist  evidently 
expected  the  second  coming  of  Christ  in  his  time,  which  was 
characteristic  of  the  first  generation  after  Christ.  The  great 
majority  of  conservative  scholars  place  the  composition  of 
this  Gospel  somewhere  between  58  and  63  A.  D.  The  main 
arguments  for  this  date  are :  ( 1 )  it  is  in  harmony  with 
ancient  tradition;  (2)  it  best  explains  the  total  silence  of 
Luke  regarding  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  and  (3)  it  is 
most  in  harmony  with  the  dating  of  Acts  in  63  A.  D.,  which 
offers  a  good  explanation  of  Luke's  silence  with  respect  to 
the  death  of  Paul. 

As  to  the  place,  where  the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  written 
tradition  points  to  Achaia  and  Boeotia.  We  have  no  means 
of  controlling  this  testimony,  however,  so  that  it  really  leaves 
us  in  ignorance.  Some  of  the  modern  guesses  are,  Rome, 
Caesarea,  Asia  Minor,  Ephesus,  and  Corinth. 

3.  Method.  In  view  of  the  preface  of  Luke's  Gospel 
we  have  reason  to  believe  that  in  the  composition  of  it  the 
evangelist   depended    on   both   oral   tradition   and   written 


100  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

sources.  In  present  day  theories  the  emphasis  is  mainly 
placed  on  written  sources,  and  the  most  prevalent  hypothesis 
is  that  he  employed  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  either  in  the  present 
form  or  in  an  earlier  recension ;  the  apostolic  source  Q  or 
some  Sf^YTQaK;,  containing  this  (from  which  two  sources 
he  derived  mainly  the  matter  that  he  has  in  common  with 
Matthew  and  Mark)  ;  and  a  third  main  source  of  unknown 
character  and  authorship,  from  which  he  drew  the  narrative 
of  the  nativity,  chs.  1,  2,  and  the  account  of  the  last  journey 
to  Jerusalem,  contained  in  9 :  51 — 18 :  14.  Zahn  also  believes 
that  Luke  employed  Mark  as  one  of  his  sources,  but  does 
not  attempt  to  give  a  nearer  definition  of  the  other  sources 
used.  The  opinion  that  he  drew  part  of  his  material  from 
Josephus  deserves  but  a  passing  notice.  It  seems  to  us  that 
it  is  impossible  to  determine  exactly  what  sources  Luke 
used ;  all  we  can  say  is  :  ( 1 )  Having  been  an  associate  of 
Paul  for  several  years,  part  of  which  he  spent  in  Palestine, 
where  he  had  abundant  opportunity  to  meet  other  apostles 
and  eyewitnesses  of  the  Lord's  works,  he  must  have  gath- 
ered a  large  store  of  knowledge  from  oral  tradition,  which 
he  utilized  in  the  composition  of  his  gospel.  This  accounts 
for  a  great  deal  of  the  matter  which  he  has  in  common  with 
Matthew  and  Mark.  (2)  During  the  time  of  his  research 
in  Palestine  he  also  became  acquainted  with  a  goodly  number 
of  ^iri^riaziq,  narratives  of  the  Gospel  facts,  of  which  we 
can  no  more  determine  the  exact  nature,  and  drew  on  them 
for  a  part  of  his  material.  One  of  these  probably  contained 
the  matter  found  in  chs.  1  and  2,  and  in  9:  51 — 18:  14.  (3) 
It  does  not  seem  likely  that  Luke  read  either  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  or  that  of  Mark,  and  classed  them  or  either  one  of 
them  with  the  previous  attempts,  on  which  he  desired  to  im- 
prove. Oral  tradition  in  connection  with  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  quite  sufficient  to  explain  the  resemblance 
between  these  Gospels  and  that  of  Luke. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  canonicity  of   this  Gospel  is  well  attested.     Says 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE  101 

Alexander  in  his  work  on  the  Canon  p.  177:  "The  same 
arguments  by  which  the  canonical  authority  of  the  Gospels 
of  Matthew  and  Mark  was  established,  apply  with  their  full 
force  to  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  It  was  universally  received 
as  canonical  by  the  whole  primitive  Church — has  a  place  in 
every  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
was  ever  published — is  constantly  referred  to  and  cited  by 
the  Fathers  as  si  part  of  sacred  Scripture — and  was  one  of 
the  books  constantly  read  in  the  churches,  as  a  part  of  the 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  for  all  believers."  There  are  in 
all  16  witnesses  before  the  end  of  the  second  century  that 
testify  to  its  use  and  general  acceptance  in  the  Church. 

The  gospel  of  Luke  presents  to  us  Christ  especially  as 
one  of  the  human  race,  the  Seed  of  the  woman,  in  his 
saving  work  not  only  for  Israel,  but  also  for  the  Gentiles. 
Hence  it  pictures  him  as  the  friend  of  the  poor  and  as  seek- 
ing sinners,  emphasizes  the  universality  of  the  Gospel  bless- 
ings, and  distinctly  bespeaks  a  friendly  relation  to  the 
Samaritans.  Its  permanent  spiritual  value  is  that  it  reminds 
the  Church  of  all  ages  that  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth 
God,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with  him ;  and 
that  we  have  a  great  High  Priest  that  was  touched  with  the 
feeling  of  our  infirmities,  and  was  in  all  parts  tempted  like 
as  we  are,  yet  without  sin. 


The  Gospel  of  John. 


CONTENTS. 

The  contents  of  the  Gospel  of  John  is  also  divided  into 
five  parts : 

/.  The  Advent  and  Incarnation  of  the  Word,  1 :  1-13. 
John  takes  his  point  of  departure  in  the  pre-existence  and 
divine  origin  of  Christ,  and  points  out  that  He  was  heralded 
by  John  the  Baptist,  was  the,  light  of  the  world  and  gave 
believers  the  power  to  become  the  children  of  God. 

//.  The  Incarnate  Word  the  only  Life  of  the  World, 
1:14 — 6:71.  The  evangelist  records  the  testimony  to  the 
grace  and  truth  of  the  incarnate  Word  given  by  John  the 
Baptist  and  by  Christ  himself  in  word  and  deed,  1  :  \A — 
2:11;  and  the  self-revelation  of  Christ  in  the  cleansing  of  the 
temple,  2:  12-32;  in  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  3:  1- 
21;  followed  by  the  public  testimony  of  John  3:22-36;  in 
the  conversation  with  the  Samaritan  woman,  4:  1-42;  and 
in  the  healing  of  the  nobleman's  son,  4 :  43-54.  More  parti- 
cularly he  shows,  how  Christ  reveals  himself  as  the  author 
and  sustainer  of  life  in  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man  and 
its  vindication,  5  :  1-47 ;  and  in  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  with 
the  following  discourse,  leading  to  desertion  on  the  one  and 
to  confession  on  the  other  hand,  6:  1-71. 

///.  The  Incarnate  Word,  the  Life  and  Light,  in  Con- 
flict with  Spiritual  Darkness,  7 :  1 — 1 1 :  54.  On  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  Christ  reminds  the  Jews  of  the  fact  that  He  is 
the  life  of  the  world,  and  presents  himself  to  them  as  the 
water  of  life,  wherefore  officers  were  sent  to  take  him, 
7 :  1-52.  The  following  day  He  brings  out  the  spiritual  dark- 
ness of  the  Jews  in  connection  with  the  adulterous  woman, 
and  declares  that  He  is  the  light  of  the  world,  the  only  light 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  103 

that  can  truly  enlighten  them ;  and  that  He  only  could  liber- 
ate them  from  their  spiritual  bondage ;  which  leads  to  an 
attempt  to  stone  him,  8:  1-59.  On  a  subsequent  occasion 
He  proves  himself  to  be  the  light  of  the  world  by  healing 
the  blind  man  and  speaks  of  himself  as  the  good  Shepherd 
that  lays  down  his  life  for  his  sheep;  thereby  provoking  un- 
belief and  rage,  9 :  1 — 10 :  21.  At  the  feast  of  the  dedication 
He  declares  that  He  and  the  Father  are  one,  which  again 
leads  to  an  attempt  to  stone  him,  10 :  22-42.  In  raising 
Lazarus  Jesus  presents  himself  as  the  resurrection  and  the 
life,  thus  leading  some  of  the  people  to  believe  in  him,  but 
his  enemies  to  the  settled  purpose  to  kill  him,  11 :  1-54. 

IV.  The  Incarnate  Word  saving  the  Life  of  the  World 
through  his  Sacrificial  Death,  11 :  55 — 19:  42.  The  enemies 
plan  to  kill  Jesus,  but  Mary  of  Bethany  anoints  him  and  the 
people  meet  him  with  glad  hosannas ;  the  Greeks  seek  him 
at  Jerusalem,  but  the  multitude  turns  from  him  in  unbelief, 
11 :  55 — 12 :  50.  He  sits  at  the  Paschal  supper  with  his  dis- 
ciples, gives  them  a  lesson  in  humble  service,  exposes  the 
traitor  and  announces  that  the  time  has  now  come  to  leave 
his  disciples,  13:1-38.  He  discourses  on  the  significance 
of  his  departure  and  on  the  new  life  in  communion  with 
the  Father,  14 :  1 — 16 :  33 ;  and  offers  the  intercessory 
prayer  committing  his  followers  to  the  Father,  17:1-26. 
In  Gethsemane  He  is  taken  captive,  and  after  a  preliminary 
hearing  before  the  high  priest  is  brought  before  Pilate  who, 
though  finding  no  guilt  in  Jesus,  yet  delivers  him  into  the 
hands  of  the  Jews  to  be  crucified,  18 :  1-16.  After  his  cruci- 
fixion He  is  buried  by  Joseph  and  Nicodemus,  19:  17-42. 

V.  The  Incarnate  Word,  risen  from  the  Dead,  the 
Saviour  and  Lord  of  all  Believers,  20:  1 — 21 :  25.  Having 
risen  from  the  dead,  Jesus  appears  to  Mary  Magdalena  and 
on  two  successive  Lord's  days  to  his  disciples,  20:1-31. 
Later  He  is  seen  by  some  of  his  disciples  at  the  sea  of 
Tiberias,  where  He  restores  Peter  and  points  significantly  to 
the  career  of  John,  the  writer  of  the  Gospel,  31 :  1-25. 


104  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

Of  the  characteristics  that  mark  the  fourth  Gospel  the 
following  especially  are  to  be  noted : 

1.  The  gospel  of  John  emphasizes  more  than  any  of  the 
others  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  It  has  no  historical  starting- 
point,  like  the  Synoptics,  but  recedes  back  into  the  depths  of 
eternity,  and  starts  out  with  the  statement  sublime  in  its 
simplicity :  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  Positively,  the 
Logos-doctrine  is  peculiar  to  this  Gospel ;  negatively,  every 
indication  of  Christ's  human  development  and  of  his  gradu- 
ally awakening  self-consciousness  is  strikingly  absent  from 
it.  We  find  no  genealogy  here,  no  description  of  Christ's 
birth  with  its  attendant  circumstances,  and  no  narrative  of 
his  baptism  and  temptation.  John  the  Baptist  testifies  to 
his  Divinity,  as  soon  as  He  enters  on  the  scene,  and  He  him- 
self publicly  claims  this  prerogative  almost  from  the  begin- 
ning of  his  public  ministry,  cf.  3 :  13 ;  5  :  17  ff ;  6:  32,  40  ff., 
etc.  The  miracles  of  the  Lord,  narrated  in  this  Gospel,  are 
of  such  a  character  that  they  give  great  prominence  to  his 
divine  power.  The  nobleman's  son  was  cured  from  a  dis- 
tance, 4 :  46  ff . ;  the  man  at  Bethesda  had  been  infirm  thirty- 
eight  years,  5:5;  the  bhnd  man  at  Jerusalem  had  been  horn 
blind,  9:1;  and  Lazarus  had  already  lain  in  the  grave  four 
days,  11  :  17. 

2.  The  teaching  of  Christ  greatly  predominates  in  John's 
Gospel,  but  this  is  quite  different  from  that  contained  in  the 
Synoptics.  We  find  no  parables  here  but  elaborate  dis- 
courses, which  also  contain  a  couple  of  allegories.  The  all- 
absorbing  topic  is  not  the  Kingdom  of  God  but  the  Person 
of  the  Messiah.  The  simple  rudimentary  teaching  regarding 
the  Kingdom  is  here  replaced  by  a  more  penetrating  (though 
not  developed)  instruction  in  the  deeper  realities  of  faith. 
In  connection  with  his  miracles  or  other  historical  facts 
Christ  presents  himself  as  the  source  of  life,  4:46 — 5:47; 
the  spiritual  nourishment  of  the  soul,  6:  22-65 ;  the  water  of 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  105 

life,  4 :  7-16 ;  7 :  37,  38 ;  the  true  liberator,  8 :  31-58 ;  the  light 
of  the  world,  9 :  5,  35-41 ;  and  the  living  principle  of  the 
resurrection,  1 1 :  25,  26.  The  farewell  discourses  of  the 
Saviour,  besides  containing  many  profound  truths  respect- 
ing his  personal  relation  to  believers,  are  also  significant  on 
account  of  their  clear  references  to  the  coming  Paraclete. 

3.  The  scene  of  action  in  this  Gospel  is  quite  different 
from  that  in  the  Synoptics.  In  the  latter  the  work  of  Christ 
in  GaHlee  is  narrated  at  length,  while  He  is  seen  at  Jeru- 
salem only  during  the  last  week  of  His  life.  In  the  Gospel 
of  John,  on  the  other  hand,  the  long  ministry  of  Christ  in 
Galilee  is  presupposed  rather  than  narrated,  while  his  work 
and  teaching  in  Judea  and  particularly  at  Jerusalem  is  made 
very  prominent.  The  great  feasts  afforded  the  occasion  for 
this  work  and  are  therefore  distinctly  mentioned.  John 
speaks  of  three,  possibly  four,  Passovers,  2:13;5:1;6:4; 
13:1;  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  7:2;  and  of  the  feast  of 
the  Dedication,  10 :  22. 

4.  The  Gospel  of  John  is  far  more  definite  than  the 
Synoptics  in  pointing  out  the  time  and  place  of  the  occur- 
rences that  are  narrated  ;  it  is  in  a  certain  sense  more  chrono- 
logical than  the  other  Gospels.  We  are  generally  informed 
as  to  the  place  of  Christ's  operation.  Definite  mention  is 
made  of  Bethany,  1:28;  Cana,  2:1;  Capernaum,  2:12; 
Jerusalem,  2:13;  Sychar,  4:5;  Bethesda,  5:2,  etc.  The 
designations  of  time  are  equally  distinct,  sometimes  the  hour 
of  the  day  being  given.  The  chronological  framework  of 
the  gospel  is  found  in  its  reference  to  the  great  feasts.  John 
the  Baptist  sees  Christ  coming  to  him  the  day  after  he  had 
met  the  delegation  from  Jerusalem,  1 :  29 ;  and  again  on  the 
following  day,  1 :  35.  A  day  later  Christ  called  Philip  and 
Nathanael,  1 :  43-51 ;  on  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage 
in  Cana,  2 :  1  ;  it  was  at  the  sixth  hour  that  Christ  sat  down 
at  the  well,  4:6;  at  the  seventh,  that  the  nobleman's  son 
was  cured,  4 :  52 ;  in  the  midst  of  the  feast  that  Jesus  went 
into  the  temple,  7:14;  and  again  on  the  last  great  day,  7  :  37 ; 


106  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

and  about  the  sixth  hour  that  Christ  was  delivered  unto  the 
Jews  by  Pilate,  19 :  14. 

5.  The  style  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  not  like  that  of  the 
other  three.  It  is  peculiar  in  that  "it  contains,  on  the  one 
hand,  except  in  the  prologue  and  /ocpa  '/atpet  in  3  :29,  hardly 
any  downright  Hebraisms,"  Simcox,  The  Writers  of  the 
New  Testament  p.  73,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  approaches 
the  style  of  Old  Testament  writers  more  than  the  style  of 
any  other  New  Testament  writing  does.  John  evidently 
commanded  a  fairly  good  Greek  vocabulary,  but  does  not 
attempt  any  elaborate  sentences.  Rather  than  do  this,  he 
will  repeat  part  of  a  previous  statement  and  then  add  a  new 
element  to  it.  His  sentences  are  generally  connected  in  the 
most  simple  way  by  v.ai,  Ss  or  ouv,  and  his  descriptions  are 
often  elaborate  and  repetitious.  He  exhibits  a  special  fond- 
ness for  contrasts  and  for  the  use  of  the  parallelismus  mem- 
brorum.  A  very  characteristic  expression  of  his  is  ^(oy) 
atwvoi;,  which  occurs  17  times  in  the  Gospel.  For  other 
phrases  and  expressions  see  Simcox.  He  also  employs  sev- 
eral  Aramaean   words,   as   pa^^t,    pa^^ouvl,   xiQcpai;,   \i.eaaiaq, 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  voice  of  antiquity  is  all  but  unanimous  in  ascribing 
the  fourth  Gospel  to  John.  The  Monarchian  sect,  called 
by  Epiphanius,  "the  Alogi,"  forms  the  only  exception.  Little 
is  known  of  this  sect,  except  that  it  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
the  Logos.  Salmon  says :  "In  fact  I  now  believe  that  "the 
Alogi"  consisted  of  Caius  and,  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  of 
nobody  else."  Introd.  p.  229.  The  internal  evidence  for  the 
authorship  of  the  Gospel  is  now  generally  arranged  under 
the  following  heads : 

1.  The  author  was  a  Jew.  He  evidently  had  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  Old  Testament,  had,  as  it  were,  im- 
bibed the  spirit  of  the  prophetical  writings.  He  knew  them 
not  only  in  the  translation  of  the  LXX,  but  in  their  original 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  107 

language,  as  is  evident  from  several  Old  Testament  quota- 
tions. Moreover  the  style  of  the  author  clearly  reveals 
his  Jewish  nationality.  He  wrote  Greek,  it  is  true,  but  his 
construction,  his  circumstantiality  and  his  use  of  parallelism, 
are  all  Hebraic.  "There  is  a  Hebrew  soul  living  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  evangelist."  Luthardt,  St.  John  the  Author 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  166.  Ewald  comes  to  the  con- 
clusion, "that  the  Greek  language  of  the  author  bears  in 
itself  still  the  clearest  and  strongest  mark  of  a  genuine  He- 
brew, who  born  among  the  Jews  in  the  Holy  Land,  and 
grown  up  in  this  society  without  speaking  Greek,  carries  in 
himself  the  whole  spirit  and  breath  of  his  mother-tongue 
even  in  the  midst  of  the  Greek  raiment  that  he  afterwards 
learnt  to  cast  about  him,  and  has  no  hesitation  to  let  himself 
be  led  by  that  spirit."    Quoted  by  Luthardt,  p.  167. 

2.  The  author  was  a  Palestinian  Jew.  He  clearly  shows 
that  he  is  well  at  home  in  the  Jewish  world.  He  is  inti- 
mately acquainted  with  Jewish  customs  and  religious  obser- 
vances and  with  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and  moves 
about  with  ease  in  the  Jewish  world  of  thought.  He  knows 
that,  according  to  the  strict  Jewish  conception,  it  was  unlaw- 
ful to  heal  on  the  sabbath,  5:1  ff. ;  9 :  14  fif. ;  and  also  that 
circumcision  was  allowed,  7 :  22  ff .  He  is  aware  of  the 
Jewish  expectation  of  Elijah,  1 :  21 ;  and  of  the  ill-feeling 
between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  4 : 9.  He  under- 
stood that  the  Jews  regarded  a  misfortune  as  the  result  of 
some  particular  sin,  9:2;  and  that  they  considered  one  un- 
clean who  had  entered  the  house  of  a  Gentile,  18:28.  He 
is  thoroughly  acquainted  with  Jerusalem,  5:2;  with  the  val- 
ley of  Sichem  and  mount  Gerezim,  4 :  5  ff . ;  with  the  temple, 
8 :  20 ;  and  with  Capernaum  and  other  places  around  the  sea 
of  Galilee,  7. 

3.  The  writer  was  an  eyewitness  of  the  events  he  re- 
lates. He  claims  this  explicitly,  if  not  already  in  1 :  14,  "we 
beheld  his  glory"  (Cf.  I  John  1:1-3),  certainly  in  19:35. 
"And  he  that  saw  it  bare  record,  and  his  record  is  true; 


108  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith  true  that  ye  might  beheve." 
This  claim  is  corroborated  by  the  lively  and  yet  simple 
manner  in  which  he  pictures  the  events  ;  by  the  many  definite 
chronological  data  and  naming  of  localities,  to  which  we 
have  already  referred  ;  and  by  the  great  prominence  given  to 
certain  individuals  with  whom  Jesus  came  in  contact. 

4.  The  author  was  the  apostle  John.  He  often  makes 
mention  in  his  Gospel  of  a  disciple  whom  he  never  names, 
but  to  whom  he  constantly  refers  as  "the  (an)  other  dis- 
ciple," or  as  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."  Cf.  13:23; 
18:15;  19:26;  20:2,  3,  4,  8;  21:7.  At  the  close  of  his 
Gospel  he  says  of  him :  "This  is  the  disciple  which  testi- 
fieth  these  things ;  and  we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true," 
21 :  24.  Who  was  this  disciple?  The  evangelist  names  only 
seven  of  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  the  five  that  are  not 
named  being  John  and  his  brother  James,  Matthew,  Simon 
the  Canaanite  and  James  the  son  of  Alpheus.  Now  it  is 
evident  from  1 :  35-41  that  said  disciple  was  one  of  the  first 
ones  called  by  the  Lord,  and  these  according  to  Mark 
1  :  16-19  were  Peter,  Andrew,  John  and  James.  The  first 
two  are  explicitly  named  in  John  1 :  41-43,  so  that  the  one 
whose  name  is  suppressed  must  have  been  either  John  or 
James.  But  we  cannot  think  of  James  as  the  author  of  this 
Gospel,  since  he  died  a  martyr's  death  as  early  as  A.  D.  44. 
Therefore  John  must  have  been  the  writer. 

According  to  Mt.  27:56  and  Mk.  1:20;  15:40.  John 
was  the  son  of  Zebedee  and  Salome  who  probably  belonged 
to  the  middle  class  of  society.  His  mother  was  among  the 
faithful  followers  of  the  Saviour,  Mt.  27:56;  Mk.  16:1. 
He  was  one  of  the  very  first  followers  of  Jesus  and  soon 
appears  as  one  of  the  innermost  circle  of  the  disciples,  one 
of  the  three  that  always  accompany  the  Saviour.  With  the 
Lord  he  enters  the  dwelling  of  Jairus,  ascends  the  mount  of 
transfiguration  and  penetrates  into  the  dark  recesses  of 
Gethsemane.  As  he  stands  by  the  cross,  the  mother  of  Jesus 
is  entrusted  to  his  care.    On  the  morning  of  the  resurrection 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  109 


he  is  one  of  the  first  to  visit  the  grave  of  the  Saviour.  In 
the  first  part  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  he  appears  as  one 
of  the  faithful  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord. 
After  that  we  lose  sight  of  John  in  Scripture,  but  tradition 
tells  us  that  he  spent  the  last  part  of  his  life  in  Asia  Minor, 
especially  at  Ephesus,  where  he  died  in  venerable  age. 

There  is  an  apparent  contradiction  between  the  synop- 
tical data  regarding  the  character  of  John  and  the  concep- 
tion of  it  derived  from  his  own  writings,  but  this  is  easily 
explained.  The  very  first  indication  of  his  character  we 
glean  from  the  statement  in  Mk.  3:17,  that  the  Lord  named 
him  and  his  brother  James  "Boanerges,  which  is,  the  sons 
of  thunder."  This  conveys  the  idea  of  an  ardent  temper, 
of  great  strength  and  vehemence  of  character.  And  on 
two  occasions  we  find  that  they  reveal  just  such  traits,  viz. 
when  they  peremptorily  forbade  one  who  was  casting  out 
devils  in  the  name  of  Jesus  to  continue  this,  Mk.  9 :  38 ;  Lk. 
9 :  49 ;  and  when  they  desired  permission  to  command  fire 
to  come  down  from  heaven  to  devour  the  Samaritans,  Lk. 
9 :  54.  In  both  cases  the  Lord  reproves  their  show  of  tem- 
per. Another  trait  of  their  character  is  revealed  in  their 
request  to  sit  in  the  places  of  honor  in  the  future  Kingdom 
of  Jesus,  Mt.  20:20-24;  Mk.  10:35-41.  Their  ambition 
was  such  as  to  offend  the  other  disciples  and  to  call  forth  a 
severe  rebuke  from  the  Lord.  John  was,  no  doubt,  zealous 
for  the  Lord,  but  his  zeal  was  mistaken ;  he  had  a  passionate 
desire  to  be  near  his  Master,  but  he  showed  this  in  a  manner 
that  was  not  free  from  selfishness  and  pride.  The  Lord 
directed  his  zeal  and  ambition  into  other  channels  by  point- 
ing out  their  unspiritual  character  and  by  teaching  him  that 
one  can  be  great  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  only  by  being  the 
servant  of  one's  brethren.  This  undoubtedly  made  a  pro- 
found impression  on  the  sensitive  John  and  begot  within 
him  the  habit  of  introspection,  of  self-examination.  He 
became  more  quiet,  more  reserved  with  an  inclination  to 
ponder  on  the  mysteries  that  he  encountered  in  his  daily 
association  with  the  Lord,  and  penetrated  farther  than  the 


110  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Other  disciples  into  the  hidden  depths  of  the  mysterious  life 
of  Christ.  As  a  result  John,  as  he  reveals  himself  in  his 
writings,  is  quite  different  from  the  John  of  the  Synoptics. 
From  his  Gospel  and  Epistles  we  learn  to  know  him  as  a 
man  of  deep  religious  feeling,  beloved  of  Christ ;  a  man 
that  lived  in  close  communion  with  his  Lord,  a  communion 
more  spiritual,  however,  than  he  desired  in  his  youthful 
years.  His  exclusivism  has  made  place  for  a  love  that  would 
embrace  all ;  his  zeal  is  still  operative,  but  it  has  been  sancti- 
fied and  led  into  proper  channels ;  his  strength  has  become 
a  tower  of  defense  for  spiritual  truth. 

Not  until  the  last  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  the 
authorship  of  John  attacked  on  critical  grounds,  and  even 
then  the  attacks  were  of  small  significance.  Bretschneider 
in  1820  was  the  first  to  assail  it  in  a  systematic  way.  But 
he  was  soon  followed  by  others,  such  as  Baur,  Strauss, 
Schwegler,  Zeller,  Scholten,  Davidson,  Wrede  e.  a.  It  has 
been  their  persistent  endeavor  to  show  that  the  Gospel  of 
John  is  a  product  of  the  second  century.  Some  would 
ascribe  it  to  that  shadowy  person,  the  presbyter  John,  whose 
existence  Eusebius  infers  from  a  rather  ambiguous  passage 
of  Papias,  but  who,  in  all  probability,  is  to  be  identified  with 
John  the  apostle.  Others  positively  reject  this  theory. 
Wrede,  after  arguing  that  the  authorship  of  John  cannot 
be  established,  says :  "Far  less  can  the  recent  hypothesis  be 
regarded  as  proven  which  purports  to  find  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  in  John  the  presbyter."  The  Origin  of  the  New 
Testament  p.  89. 

The  most  important  considerations  that  led  many  ration- 
alistic critics  to  the  conclusion  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was 
written  in  the  second  century,  are  the  following:  (1)  The 
theology  of  the  Gospel,  especially  its  representation  of 
Christ,  is  developed  to  such  a  degree  that  it  points  beyond 
the  first  and  reflects  the  consciousness  of  the  Church  of  the 
second  century.  (2)  The  Gospel  was  evidently  written  un- 
der the  influence  of  the  philosophic  and  religious  tendencies 
that  were  prevalent  in  the  second  century,  such  as  Montan- 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  111 

ism,  Docetism  and  Gnosticism.  (3)  The  great  difference 
between  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics  appears  to  be 
the  result  of  second  century  cavilling  respecting  the  nature 
of  Christ,  and  of  the  Paschal  controversy. 

But  the  idea  that  the  Gospel  of  John  is  a  second  century 
product  goes  counter  to  both  the  internal  evidence  to  which 
we  already  referred,  and  to  the  external  testimony,  which  is 
exceptionally  strong  and  which  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
very  beginning  of  the  second  century.  Some  of  the  Epistles 
of  Ignatius  show  the  influence  of  John's  Christology,  and  the 
writings  of  both  Papias  and  Polycarp  contain  allusions  to 
the  first  Epistle  of  John,  which  was  evidently  written  at 
the  same  time  as  the  Gospel.  The  latter  was  in  existence, 
therefore,  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  The  theol- 
ogy of  the  Gospel  of  John  is  no  more  developed  than  that  of 
Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  Colossians,  that 
were  written  between  A.  D.  61  and  63.  Critics  generally 
ceased  to  place  any  reliance  on  the  so-called  Montanistic 
features  of  the  Gospel,  and  although  they  still  maintain  that 
some  passages  contain  traces  of  a  Docetic  Gnosticism,  these 
are  purely  imaginary  and  readily  vanish,  when  the  light  of 
exegesis  is  turned  on.  The  connection  of  the  Gospel  with 
the  Paschal  controversy  is  now  admitted  to  be  very  dubious. 
And  the  difference  between  it  and  the  Synoptics  can  be 
satisfactorily  explained  without  regarding  it  as  a  work  of 
the  second  century.    Cf.  above  p.  19  ff. 

Critics  of  the  Tubingen  school,  who  accepted  the  Johan- 
nine  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse,  were  wont  to  deny  that 
John  had  written  the  Gospel,  because  it  differed  in  so  many 
respects  from  the  former  work.  At  present  this  argument  is 
not  insisted  on,  because  scholars  are  not  so  sure  as  they 
once  were,  that  John  wrote  the  book  of  Revelation.  Reuss, 
who  still  argues  in  that  fashion,  says :  "It  must  be  admitted 
that  even  in  the  most  recent  times  the  decision  of  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  apostolic  genuineness  of  the  Apocalypse  has 
by   both    sides   been   made   to   depend   upon   a   previously 


112  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

formed  judgment  as  to  the  fourth  Gospel."    History  of  the 
N.  T.,  I  p.  161. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Readers  and  Purpose.  The  Gospel  of  John  was  in 
all  probability  written  primarily  for  the  Christians  of  Asia 
Minor,  among  whom  especially  the  heresy  of  Cerinthus  had 
arisen.  Early  tradition  has  it  that  John  wrote  it  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  bishops  of  Asia  to  combat  that  heresy.  Internal 
evidence  certainly  favors  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  com- 
posed for  Greek  readers.  The  author  carefully  interprets 
Hebrew  and  Aramaeic  words,  as  in  1:38,  41,  42;  9:7; 
11 :  16;  19:  13,  17;  20:  16.  He  makes  it  a  point  to  explain 
Jewish  customs  and  geographical  designations,  1 :  28 ;  2:1; 
4:4,  5;  11:54,  .  ..7:37;  19:31,40,  42.  Moreover,  notwith- 
standing his  characteristically  Hebrew  style,  he  usually 
quotes  from  the  Septuagint. 

It  was  not  John's  purpose  to  furnish  a  supplement  to  the 
Synoptics,  though  his  Gospel  certainly  contains  a  good  deal 
of  supplemental  matter ;  neither  did  he  mean  to  produce  a 
direct  polemic  against  the  Cerinthian  heresy,  even  if  this  did 
to  a  certain  degree  determine  his  special  way  of  stating  the 
truth.  He  did  not  aim  at  conciliating  the  discordant  parties 
of  the  second  century  by  leading  them  up  to  a  higher  unity, 
as  the  Tubingen  school  asserted ;  nor  at  refuting  "Jewish 
objections  and  invectives,"  and  at  providing  "his  fellow- 
Christians  with  weapons  ready  to  hand ;"  a  hypothesis  of 
which  Wrede  asserts :  "This  view  is  on  the  whole  a  recent 
one,  but  it  is  making  victorious  progress  among  scholars." 
The  Origin  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  84. 

The  apostle  himself  gives  expression  to  his  purpose, 
when  he  says :  "These  things  are  written  that  ye  might 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that 
believing,  ye  might  have  life  in  his  name,"  20:31.  His 
aim  is  twofold,  therefore,  theoretical  and  practical.  He 
desires  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
and  to  lead  believers  to  a  life  of  blessed  communion  with 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  113 

him.  The  means  he  employs  to  that  end  are :  ( 1 )  The 
miracles  of  the  Lord,  on  which  special  emphasis  is  placed, 
cf.  20:30;  31:25;  and  which  are  contemplated  as  ar)[xela, 
as  signs  of  the  divine  glory  of  Christ.  (2)  The  long  dis- 
courses of  the  Saviour,  which  serve  to  interpret  his  signs 
and  to  describe  the  unique  relation  in  which  He  stands  to 
the  Father.  And  (3)  the  narratives  touching  Jesus'  dealing 
with  individuals,  such  as  Nathanael,  Nicodemus,  the  Samari- 
tan woman,  Philip,  Mary  Magdalena  and  Thomas,  showing, 
how  He  led  them  to  faith,  a  faith  culminating  in  the  con- 
fession of  Thomas :    "My  Lord  and  my  God." 

2.  Time  and  Place.  Since  John  was  undoubtedly  the 
writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  we  have  a  terminus  ad  quem 
in  A.  D.  98,  for  Irenaeus  says  that  John  lived  to  the  time  of 
Trajan,  who  began  his  reign  in  that  year.  The  testimony  of 
Jerome  is  to  the  same  effect :  "The  apostle  John  lived  in 
Asia  to  the  time  of  Trajan,  and  dying  at  a  great  age  in  the 
sixty-eighth  year  of  our  Lord's  passion,  was  buried  near 
the  city  of  Ephesus."  The  same  writer  places  the  death  of 
John  in  A.  D.  100.  In  all  probability,  however,  John  wrote 
his  Gospel  several  years  before  his  death,  since  its  style  is, 
as  Alford  remarks,  "that  of  a  matured,  but  not  of  an  aged 
writer."  Prolegomena  to  the  Gospels  Ch.  V.,  Sec.  VI,  10. 
It  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  find  a  terminus  a  quo.  We  may 
be  sure  that  the  apostle  did  not  compose  the  Gospel  until 
Sifter  the  death  of  Paul  in  A.  D.  68.  The  congregations  of 
A.sia  Minor  were  the  special  charge  of  the  great  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  he  never  makes  any  mention  in  his  Epistles 
of  John's  being  in  their  midst,  nor  does  he  send  him  a  single 
salutation ;  and  when  he  parted  from  the  Ephesian  elders, 
he  evidently  did  not  anticipate  the  coming  of  an  apostle 
among  them.  Moreover  we  infer  from  21 :  19  that  John 
knew  of  the  manner  in  which  Peter  died,  and  presupposes 
this  knowledge  in  his  readers.  Therefore  it  is  unlikely  that 
the  Gospel  was  written  before  A.  D.  70.  Bengel  in  his 
Gnomon  infers  from  the  use  of  the  present  tense  in  5  :  2  that 


114  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Jerusalem  was  still  intact.  But  this  argument  is  not  con- 
clusive, since  the  city  was  not  completely  demolished  by  the 
Romans,  and  because  we  can  with  equal  propriety  conclude 
from  11:18  that  both  Jerusalem  and  Bethany  had  been 
swept  off  the  face  of  the  earth.  John's  utter  silence  regard- 
ing the  destruction  of  the  city  favors  the  idea  that  he  wrote 
the  Gospel  several  years  after  that  calamity.  Zahn  would 
date  the  Gospel  after  A.  D.  80,  his  terminus  ad  quem  for 
the  composition  of  Luke's  Gospel,  since  tradition  teaches 
that  John  wrote  later  than  the  Synoptics.  Among  rational- 
istic critics  the  most  divergent  dates  are  suggested.  Baur 
held  that  the  Gospel  was  composed  between  A.  D.  160  and 
170.  At  present  the  tendency  is  to  revert  to  some  date 
nearer  the  limits  indicated  above.  Thus  Pfleiderer  dates  it 
A.  D.  140;  Hilgenfeld  believes  that  it  originated  between 
A.  D.  130  and  140.  Harnack  and  Jiilicher  are  not  inclined 
to  place  it  later  than  A.  D.  110,  and  the  former  even  admits 
that  it  may  have  been  written  as  early  as  A.  D.  80. 

Tradition  points  to  Ephesus  as  the  place  of  composition. 
Origen  testifies  "that  John,  having  lived  long  in  Asia,  was 
buried  at  Ephesus."  This  is  confirmed  by  Polycrates,  a 
bishop  of  Ephesus.  Jerome  says :  "John  wrote  a  Gospel  at 
the  desire  of  the  bishops  of  Asia."  And  Cosmas  of  Alexan- 
dria informs  us  definitely  that  John  composed  his  Gospel, 
while  dwelling  at  Ephesus.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  this 
testimony. 

3.  Method.  John's  Gospel  is  evidently  of  an  autoptic 
character.  He  may  have  read  the  Synoptics  before  he  com- 
posed his  work,  but  he  did  not  use  them  as  sources  from 
which  he  drew  a  part  of  his  material.  In  several  places  the 
author  indicates  that  he  related  what  he  had  seen  and  heard, 
cf .  1  :  14  ;  13  :  23  ;  18 :  15  ;  19  :  26,  35  ;  20 :  2.  Compare  what 
he  says  in  his  first  Epistle  1:1-3.  While  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels were  in  all  probability  based  to  a  great  extent  on  oral 
tradition  and  written  sources,  neither  of  these  played  an 
appreciable  part  in  the  composition  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  115 

John,  who  had  carefully  stored  in  memory  the  profound 
discourses  of  the  Lord  regarding  his  own  Person,  discourses 
that  made  a  deep  and  lasting  impression  on  the  beloved  dis- 
ciple, drew  on  that  fountain  of  knowledge  and,  guided  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  all  the  truth,  supplied  us  with  an  exact 
record  of  the  signs  and  words  of  the  Saviour. 

It  has  often  been  remarked  that  there  is  a  great  differ- 
ence between  the  style  of  Christ's  discourses  in  the  Synop- 
tics and  that  of  those  contained  in  the  fourth  Gospel ;  and 
that  in  this  gospel  there  is  so  much  similarity  between  the 
narrative  of  the  evangelist  and  the  discourses  of  the  Saviour 
that  it  seems  as  if  John  clothed  these  in  his  own  language. 
But  the  Synoptics  and  John  have  so  little  such  matter  in 
common  that  we  cannot  safely  build  a  conclusion  on  it,  and 
in  the  discourses  of  Christ  which  they  do  have  in  common 
no  great  difference  of  style  in  observable.  And  as  far  as  the 
second  point  is  concerned,  it  may  be,  as  Alford  thinks  prob- 
able, that  the  Lord  influenced  John  so  profoundly  that  the 
latter's  style  became  very  similar  to  that  of  the  Master.  But 
even  if  John  did  reproduce  the  discourses  of  the  Saviour 
in  his  own  style  and  language,  we  may  rest  assured  that  he 
gives  us  the  exact  teaching  of  the  Lord. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  Gospel  of  John  was  accepted  as  canonical  in  all  parts 
of  the  Church  from  the  earliest  time,  the  only  exceptions 
being  the  Alogi  and  Marcion.  It  is  true,  the  apostolic 
fathers  do  not  quote  it,  but  the  writings  of  three  of  them 
show  traces  either  of  it  or  of  the  first  Epistle.  Among  the 
Church  fathers  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertul- 
lian,  Origen,  Justin  Martyr,  Jerome  e.  a.  either  freely  quote 
it,  or  refer  to  it  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Word  of  God. 
Moreover  it  is  included  in  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  the  Mura- 
tori  canon,  and  the  Syriac  and  old  Latin  Versions.  In  all 
at  least  nineteen  witnesses  testify  to  the  use  and  recognition 
of  the  Gospel  before  the  end  of  the  second  century. 


116  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

The  great  significance  of  this  Gospel  in  Holy  Writ  is 
that  it  places  prominently  before  us  the  Son  of  Man  as  the 
Son  of  God,  as  the  eternal  Word  that  became  flesh.  Accord- 
ing to  this  Gospel  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  who  descended 
from  the  Father,  stood  in  a  unique  relation  to  the  Father, 
had  come  to  do  the  Father's  will  on  earth,  and  would  return 
to  the  glory  that  He  had  eternally  possessed  with  the  Father, 
that  He  might  send  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father  to  abide 
with  his  Church  throughout  all  ages.  In  that  Spirit  He  him- 
self returns  to  his  followers  to  dwell  in  them  forever.  He 
is  the  highest  revelation  of  God,  and  our  relation  to  him, 
either  of  faith  or  of  unbelief,  determines  our  eternal  destiny. 
Before  this  Christ  the  Church  bows  down  in  adoration  with 
Thomas  and  calls  out :    "My  Lord  and  my  God." 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 


The  contents  of  this  book  is  naturally  divided  into  two 
parts ;  in  each  of  which  the  main  topic  is  the  establishment 
of  the  Church  from  a  certain  center : 

/.  The  establishment  of  the  Church  from  Jerusalem, 
1 :  1 — 12 :  25.  In  this  part  we  first  have  the  last  discourse 
of  Christ  to  his  disciples,  the  ascension,  the  choice  of  an 
apostle  in  the  place  of  Judas,  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  conversion  of 
three  thousand,  1 :  1 — 2 :  47.  Then  follows  the  healing  of 
the  lame  man  by  Peter  and  John ;  their  faithful  witnessing 
for  Christ  in  the  temple,  for  which  they  were  taken  captive 
by  the  priests,  the  captain  of  the  temple  and  the  Sadducees  ; 
their  release,  since  the  enemies  feared  the  people ;  and  their 
thanksgiving  for  deliverance,  3:  1 — 4:31.  Next  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Church  is  described :  they  had  all  things  in  com- 
mon, and  severe  punishment  was  meted  out  to  Ananias  and 
Sapphira  for  their  deception,  4:  32 — 5:  11.  On  account  of 
their  words  and  works  the  apostles  were  again  imprisoned, 
but  delivered  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord ;  they  were  brought 
before  the  council  of  the  Jews  and  dismissed  after  a  warn- 
ing, 5 :  12-42.  The  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  leads  to  the 
appointment  of  seven  deacons,  one  of  which,  viz.  Stephen, 
wrought  miracles  among  the  people,  and  after  witnessing  for 
Christ  before  the  council,  became  the  first  Christian  martyr, 
6 :  1 — 7 :  60.  This  is  followed  by  a  description  of  the  perse- 
cution of  the  Church  and  the  resulting  scattering  of  believ- 
ers, of  the  work  of  Philip  in  Samaria,  of  Saul's  conversion, 
and  of  Peter's  healing  of  Eneas  and  raising  of  Tabitha, 
8 :  1 — 9 :  43.  Then  we  have  Peter's  vision  of  the  descending 
vessel,  his  consequent  preaching  to  the  household  of  Corne- 
lius, and  the  defense  of  his  course  before  the  brethren  in 


118  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 


Judea,  10:1 — 11:18.  The  narrative  of  the  estabHshment 
of  the  Church  at  Antioch,  of  James'  martyrdom,  and  of  the 
imprisonment  and  miraculous  deliverance  of  Peter  con- 
cludes this  section,  11 :  19 — 12:  25. 

//.  The  Establishment  of  the  Church  from  Antioch, 
13 :  1 — 28 :  31.  From  Antioch  Barnabas  and  Saul  set  out  on 
the  first  missionary  journey,  including  visits  to  Cyprus,  Pisi- 
dian  Antioch,  Iconium,  Lystra  and  Derbe,  from  where  they 
returned  to  Antioch,  13:1 — 14:28.  Then  an  account  is 
given  of  the  council  of  Jerusalem  and  its  decisions  affecting 
the  Gentiles,  15 :  1-34.  After  his  contention  with  Barnabas, 
Paul  starts  out  on  the  second  missionary  journey  with  Silas, 
passing  through  the  Cilician  gates  to  Derbe,  Lystra,  Icon- 
ium and  Troas,  whence  he  was  directed  by  a  vision  to  pass 
into  Europe,  where  he  visited  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Berea, 
Athens  and  Corinth,  preaching  the  gospel  and  establishing 
churches.  From  Corinth  he  again  returned  to  Jerusalem 
and  Antioch,  15:  35 — 18:22.  Shortly  after  Paul  began  his 
third  missionary  journey,  going  through  Asia  Minor,  staying 
at  Ephesus  for  over  two  years,  and  passing  into  Corinth, 
from  where  he  again  returned  to  Jerusalem  by  way  of 
Troas,  Ephesus  and  Cesarea,  18:23 — 21:16.  At  Jerusa- 
lem the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him,  his  defense  both  on  the  steps 
of  the  castle  and  before  the  Sanhedrin  merely  inciting 
greater  rage  and  leading  to  a  positive  determination  to  kill 
him,  21 :  17 — 23 :  14.  A  conspiracy  leads  to  Paul's  deporta- 
tion to  Cesarea,  where  he  defends  his  course  before  Felix, 
Festus  and  Agrippa,  and  on  account  of  the  unfair  treatment 
received  at  the  hands  of  these  governors,  appeals  to  Caesar, 
23:  15 — 26:  32.  From  Cesarea  he  is  sent  to  Rome,  suffers 
shipwreck  on  the  way,  performs  miracles  of  healing  on  the 
island  Melita,  and  on  reaching  his  destination  preaches  the 
gospel  to  the  Jews  and  remains  a  prisoner  at  Rome  for  two 
years,  27:  1—28:31. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.    The  great  outstanding  feature  of  this  book  is  that  it 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  119 

acquaints  us  with  the  establishment  of  Christian  churches, 
and  indicates  their  primary  organization.  According  to  it 
churches  are  founded  at  Jerusalem,  2:41-47;  Judea,  Galilee 
and  Samaria,  9:31;  Antioch,  11:26;  Asia  Minor,  14:23; 
16:5;  Philippi,  16 :  40 ;  Thessalonica,  17 :  10 ;  Berea,  17  :  14 ; 
Corinth,  18:18,  and  Ephesus,  20:17-38.  From  the  sixth 
chapter  we  learn  of  the  institution  of  the  deacon's  office, 
and  from  14:23  and  20:  17-38  it  is  clear  that  elders,  also 
called  bishops,   were  already  appointed. 

2.  The  narrative  which  it  contains  centers  about  two 
persons,  viz.  Peter  and  Paul,  the  first  establishing  the  Jew- 
ish, the  second  the  Gentile  churches.  Consequently  it  con- 
tains several  discourses  of  these  apostles,  as  Peter's  sermon 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  2 :  14-36 ;  and  in  the  temple,  3 :  12- 
26;  his  defenses  before  the  Jewish  council,  4:8-12;  5:29- 
32 ;  his  sermon  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  10 :  34-43 ;  and  his 
defense  before  the  brethren  in  Judea,  11:4-18.  And  of 
Paul  the  book  contains  the  sermons  preached  at  Antioch, 
13:  16-41;  at  Lystra,  14:  15-18;  and  at  Athens,  17:22-31; 
his  address  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  20 :  18-35 ;  and  his  de- 
fenses before  the  Jews  on  the  stairs  of  the  castle,  22:  1-21 ; 
before  the  Sanhedrin  23:  1-6;  and  before  Felix  and  Agrip- 
pa,  24:  10-21;  26:  2-29. 

3.  The  many  miracles  recorded  in  this  writing  constitute 
one  of  its  characteristic  features.  Besides  the  miracles  that 
are  not  described  and  of  which  there  were  many  "signs  and 
wonders"  by  the  apostles,  2:43;  5 :  12,  15,  16;  by  Stephen, 
6 : 8 ;  by  Philip,  8:7;  by  Paul  and  Barnabas,  14:3;  and  also 
by  Paul  alone,  19:  11,  12;  28:  1-9; — the  following  miracles 
are  specifically  described:  the  gift  of  tongues,  2:  1-11;  the 
lame  man  cured,  3:1-11;  the  shaking  of  the  prayer  hall, 
4:31;  the  death  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  5:1-11;  the 
apostles  delivered  from  prison,  5:19;  the  translation  of 
Philip,  8  :  39.  40 ;  Eneas  made  whole,  9 :  34  ;  Dorcas  restored 
to  life,  9  :  36-42  ;  Paul's  sight  restored,  9 :  17 ;  the  dehverance 
of  Peter  from  prison,  12  :  6-10 ;  the  death  of  Herod,  12 :  20- 


120  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

23;  Elymas,  the  sorcerer,  struck  blind,  13:6-11;  the  lame 
man  at  Lystra  cured,  14:8-11;  the  damsel  at  Philippi  de- 
livered ,16:16-18;  the  jail  at  Philippi  shaken,  16:25,  26; 
Eutychus  restored  to  hfe,  20:9-12;  Paul  unhurt  by  the  bite 
of  a  poisonous  viper,  28:1-6;  the  father  of  Pubhus  and 
many  others  healed,  28 : 8,  9. 

4.  The  style  of  this  book  is  very  similar  to  that  of  the 
third  Gospel,  though  it  contains  less  Hebraisms.  Simcox 
says  that  "the  Acts  is  of  all  the  books  included  in  the  New 
Testament  the  nearest  to  contemporary,  if  not  to  classical 
literary  usage, — the  only  one,  except  perhaps  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  where  conformity  to  a  standard  of  classical 
correctness  is  consciously  aimed  at."  The  Writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  p.  16.  The  tone  is  most  Hebraic  in  the 
first  part  of  the  book,  especially  in  the  sermons  in  chs.  2 
and  13  and  in  the  defense  of  Stephen  ch.  7,  in  all  of  which 
the  Old  Testament  element  is  very  large ; — and  it  is  most 
Hellenic  in  the  last  part  of  the  book,  as  in  the  epistle  of 
the  church  at  Jerusalem,  the  letter  of  Lysias,  the  speech  of 
Tertullus,  and  the  defense  of  Paul  before  Agrippa.  This  is 
undoubtedly  due  to  the  fact  that  the  first  part  of  the  book 
deals  primarily  with  Jewish,  and  last  part  especially  with 
Gentile  Christianity. 

TITLE. 

The  Greek  title  of  the  book  is  xpa^eti;  aTro(TT6X(i)v,  Acts 
of  Apostles.  There  is  no  entire  uniformity  in  the  MSS.  in 
this  respect.  The  Sinaiticus  has  simply  Tcpa^et?,  although 
it  has  the  regular  title  at  the  close  of  the  book.  Codex  D  is 
peculiar  in  having  xpa^ti;  aTcoaxoXwv,  Way  of  acting  of  the 
Apostles.  We  do  not  regard  the  title  as  proceeding  from 
the  author,  but  from  one  of  the  transcribers ;  nor  do  we 
consider  it  a  very  happy  choice.  On  the  one  hand  the  title, 
if  translated,  as  is  done  in  both  the  Authorized  and  the 
Revised  Version,  by  "The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  is  too  com- 
prehensive, since  there  are  but  two  apostles  whose  acts  are 
recorded  in  this  book,  viz.  Peter  and  Paul.     On  the  other 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  121 

hand  it  is  too  restricted,  because  the  book  contains  not  only 
several  acts,  but  also  many  words  of  these  apostles ;  and  also, 
since  it  records  besides  these  acts  and  words  of  other  per- 
sons, such  as  Stephen,  Philip  and  Barnabas. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  voice  of  the  ancient  Church  is  unanimous  in  ascrib- 
ing this  book  to  Luke,  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel. 
Irenaeus  in  quoting  passages  from  it  repeatedly  uses  the 
following  formula  :  "Luke  the  disciple  and  follower  of  Paul 
says  thus."  Clement  of  Alexandria,  quoting  Paul's  speech 
at  Athens,  introduces  it  by,  "So  Luke  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  relates."  Eusebius  says :  "Luke  has  left  us  two 
inspired  volumes,  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts."  The  external 
testimony  for  the  Lukan  authorship  is  as  strong  as  we  could 
wish  for. 

Now  the  question  arises,  whether  the  internal  evidence 
agrees  with  this.  The  book  does  not  directly  claim  to  have 
been  written  by  Luke.  Our  Scriptural  evidence  for  the 
authorship  is  of  an  inferential  character.  It  seems  to  us 
that  the  Lukan  authorship  is  supported  by  the  following 
considerations : 

1.  The  we-sections.  These  are  the  following  sections, 
16-10-17;  20:5-15;  and  27:1—28:16,  in  which  the  pro- 
noun of  the  first  person  plural  is  found,  implying  that  the 
author  was  a  companion  of  Paul  in  part  of  the  apostle's 
travels.  Since  Paul  had  several  associates,  different  names 
have  been  suggested  for  the  author  of  this  book,  as  Timothy, 
Silas,  Titus  and  Luke,  who  according  to  Col.  4:14;  Phile- 
mon 24;  and  II  Tim.  4:  11,  was  also  one  of  the  apostle's 
companions  and  best  friends.  The  first  two  persons  named 
are  excluded,  however,  by  the  way  in  which  they  are  spoken 
of  in  16:  19  and  20:  4,  5.  And  so  little  can  be  said  in  favor 
of  Titus  that  it  is  now  quite  generally  agreed  that  Luke  was 
the  author  of  the  we-sections.  But  if  this  is  true,  he  is  also 
the  author  of  the  book,  for  the  style  of  the  book  is  similar 
throughout ;  there  are  cross-references  from  the  we-sections 


122  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

to  the  other  parts  of  the  book,  as  f.  i.  in  21 : 8,  where  PhiHp 
is  introduced  as  one  of  the  seven,  while  we  know  only  from 
ch.  6  who  the  seven  were,  and  from  8 :  40,  how  Philip  came 
to  be  in  Cesarea ;  and  it  is  inconceivable  that  a  later  writer 
should  have  incorporated  the  we-sections  in  his  work  in  such 
a  skillful  manner  that  the  lines  of  demarcation  cannot  be 
discovered,  and  should  at  the  same  time  leave  the  tell-tale 
pronoun  of  the  first  person  undisturbed. 

2.  The  medical  language.  Dr.  Hobart  has  clearly- 
pointed  out  this  feature  in  both  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Some  make  light  of  this  argument, 
but  Zahn  says :  "W.  K.  Hobart  hat  f lir  J  eden,  dem  liber- 
haupt  etwas  zu  beweisen  ist,  bewiesen,  dass  der  Verfasser 
des  lucanischen  Werks  ein  mit  der  Kunstsprache  der  griech- 
ischen  Medicin  vertrauter  Mann,  ein  griechischer  Arzt  ge- 
wesen  ist."  Einl.  II  p.  429.  We  find  instances  of  this  medi- 
cal language  in  <xyX6q,  13:11;  xapaXeXuixevo?,  8:7;  9:33; 
TcupeTOtq  xat  SuasvTept'a  auvep/oixevov,  25  :8. 

3.  Assuming  that  Luke  wrote  the  third  Gospel,  a  com- 
parison of  Acts  with  that  work  also  decidedly  favors  the 
Lukan  authorship,  for :  ( 1 )  The  style  of  these  two  books  is 
similar,  the  only  difference  being  that  the  second  book  is 
less  Hebraistic  than  the  first, — a  difference  that  finds  a  ready 
explanation  in  the  sources  used  and  in  the  author's  method 
of  composition.  (2)  Both  books  are  addressed  to  the  same 
person,  viz.  Theophilus,  who  was,  so  it  seems,  a  special 
friend  of  the  author.  (3)  In  the  opening  verse  of  Acts  the 
author  refers  to  a  first  book  that  he  had  written.  Taking 
the  points  just  mentioned  in  consideration,  this  can  be  no 
other  than  our  third  Gospel,  though  Baljon,  following  Schol- 
ten,  denies  this.    Geschiedenis  v/d  Boeken  des  N .  V.  p.  421. 

4.  The  hook  contains  clear  evidence  of  having  been  writ- 
ten by  a  campanion  of  Paul.  This  follows  not  only  from  the 
we-sections,  but  also  from  the  fact  that,  as  even  unfriendly 
critics  admit,  the  author  shows  himself  well  acquainted  with 
the  Pauline  diction.    We  have  reasons  to  think  that  he  did 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  123 

not  derive  this  acquaintance  from  a  study  of  Paul's  Epistles ; 
and  if  this  is  true,  the  most  rational  explanation  is  that  he 
was  an  associate  of  Paul  and  heard  the  great  apostle  speak 
on  several  occasions.  Moreover  the  author's  characteriza- 
tion of  Paul  is  so  detailed  and  individualized  as  to  vouch 
for  personal  acquaintance. 

The  authorship  of  Luke  has  not  found  general  accept- 
ance among  New  Testament  scholars.  The  main  objections 
to  it  appear  to  be  the  following:  (1)  The  book  is  said  to 
show  traces  of  dependence  on  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus, 
a  work  that  was  written  about  A.  D.  93  or  94.  The  refer- 
ence to  Theudas  and  Judas  in  5 :  36,  37  is  supposed  to  rest 
on  a  mistaken  reading  of  Josephus,  Ant.  XX,  V,  1,  2.  (2) 
The  standpoint  of  the  author  is  claimed  to  be  that  of  a  sec- 
ond century  writer,  whose  Christianity  is  marked  by  uni- 
versality, and  who  aims  at  reconciling  the  opposing  tenden- 
cies of  his  time.  (3)  The  work  is  held  by  some  to  be  his- 
torically so  inaccurate,  and  to  reveal  such  a  wholesale  accept- 
ance of  the  miraculous,  that  it  cannot  have  been  written  by 
a  contemporary.  There  is  supposedly  a  great  conflict  espe- 
cially between  Acts  15  and  Galatians  2. 

We  cannot  enter  on  a  detailed  examination  of  these  ob- 
jections;  a  few  remarks  anent  them  must  suffice.  It  is  by 
no  means  proven  that  the  author  read  Josephus,  nor  that  he 
wrote  his  work  after  the  Jewish  historian  composed  his 
Antiquities.  Gamaliel,  who  makes  the  statement  regarding 
Theudas  and  Judas,  may  very  well  have  derived  his  knowl- 
edge from  a  different  source ;  and  his  supposed  mistake 
(which  may  not  be  a  mistake  after  all)  does  not  affect  the 
authorship,  nor  the  trustworthiness  of  the  book.  That  the 
standpoint  of  the  author  is  more  advanced  than  that  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles  (Baljon)  is  purely  imaginary;  it  is  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  the  other  New  Testament  writings.  And 
the  idea  of  a  struggle  between  the  Petrine  and  Pauline  fac- 
tions is  now  generally  discarded.  Historical  inaccuracy  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  a  book  was  written  a  considerable 


124  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

time  after  the  events.  Moreover  in  the  book  of  Acts  there 
is  no  such  inaccuracy.  On  the  contrary,  Ramsay  in  his, 
St.  Paul  the  Traveler  and  the  Roman  Citizen  has  conclus- 
ively proved  that  this  book  is  absolutely  reliable  and  is  a 
historical  work  of  the  highest  order.  It  may  be  that  some 
difficulties  have  not  yet  found  an  altogether  satisfactory 
solution,  but  this  does  not  militate  against  the  authorship 
of  Luke. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Readers  and  Purpose.  It  is  not  necessary  to  speak  at 
length  about  the  readers  for  whom  this  book  was  first  of  all 
intended,  because  like  the  Gospel  of  Luke  it  is  addressed  to 
Theophilus,  and  like  it  too  it  was  undoubtedly  destined  for 
the  same  wider  circle  of  readers,  i.  e.  the  Greeks. 

But  what  was  the  purpose  of  the  author  in  writing  this 
book  ?  This  is  a  very  much  debated  question.  The  book  of 
Acts  is  really  a  continuation  of  the  third  gospel  and  was 
therefore,  in  all  probability,  also  written  to  give  Theophilus 
the  certainty  of  the  things  narrated.  We  notice  that  in  this 
second  book,  just  as  in  the  first,  the  author  names  many  even 
^of  the  less  important  actors  in  the  events,  and  brings  out  on 
several  occasions  the  relation  of  these  events  to  secular  his- 
tory. Cf.  12:  1;  18:2;  23:26;  25:  L  Of  what  did  Luke 
want  to  give  Theophilus  certainty?  From  the  fact  that  he 
himself  says  that  he  wrote  the  first  book  to  give  his  friend 
the  certainty  of  the  things  that  Jesus  began  to  do  and  to 
teach,  we  infer  that  in  the  second  book  he  intended  to  give 
him  positive  instruction  regarding  the  things  that  Jesus  con- 
tinued to  do  and  to  teach  through  his  apostles.  It  seems  that 
he  found  his  program  in  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  1:8: 
"But  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
come  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  my  witnesses  both  in  Jeru- 
salem and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  utter- 
most parts  of  the  earth."  In  harmony  with  this  program  he 
describes  the  march  of  Christianity  from  Jerusalem,  the 
center  of  the  Jewish  Theocracy,  to  Rome,  the  center  of  the 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  125 


world.     With  Paul  in  Rome,  therefore,  the  author's  task 
is  finished. 

Opposed  to  this  view  are  those  that  regard  the  book  as  a 
tendency  writing,  in  which  history  has  been  falsified  with  a 
definite  purpose.    As  such  we  have : 

(1)  The  theory  of  the  Tubingen  school,  that  the  book 
was  written  to  conciliate  the  Petrine  and  Pauline  factions 
in  the  early  Church,  and  therefore  represents  Peter  as  more 
liberal,  and  Paul  as  more  Judaistic  than  is  in  harmony  with 
their  own  writings.  The  supposed  parallelism  between  Peter 
and  Paul,  according  to  some,  ministers  to  the  same  purpose. 
This  theory  in  the  bald  form  in  which  it  was  broached  by 
Baur,  is  now  generally  abandoned,  and  has  been  modified  in 
various  ways. 

(2)  The  view  defended  by  some  later  scholars,  such  as 
Overbeck  and  Straatman,  that  the  book  of  Acts  is  really  an 
apology  for  Christianity  over  against  the  Gentiles,  especially 
the  Romans.  Hence  the  author  gives  the  Romans  due 
honor,  and  clearly  brings  out  the  advantages  which  Paul  de- 
rived from  his  Roman  citizenship.  He  desires  to  convey  the 
impression  that  the  doctrine  taught  by  Paul,  who  was  pro- 
tected by  the  mighty  arm  of  Rome,  who  was  acquitted  of 
false  charges  by  Roman  governors,  and  who  with  a  good 
conscience  appealed  to  Cassar  himself,  could  not  be  regarded 
as  dangerous  to  the  state.  Wrede  considers  this  a  subordin- 
ate purpose  of  the  author. 

The  abiding  merit  of  these  theories  is  that  they  contem- 
plate the  book  of  Acts  as  an  artistic  whole.  For  the  rest, 
however,  they  do  not  commend  themselves  to  our  serious 
consideration.  The  basis  on  which  they  rest  is  too  uncer- 
tain ;  they  are  not  borne  out  by  the  facts ;  they  are  inimical 
to  the  well  established  historicity  of  the  book  ;  and  they  come 
to  us  with  the  unreasonable  demand,  born  of  unbelief  and 
aversion  to  the  miraculous,  to  consider  the  author  as  a  falsi- 
fier of  history. 

2.    Time  and  Place.    As  to  the  time,  when  the  book  was 


126  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

composed  little  can  be  said  with  certainty.  It  must  have 
been  written  after  A.  D.  63,  since  the  author  knows  that 
Paul  staid  in  Rome  two  years.  But  how  long  after  that 
date  was  it  written?  Among  conservative  scholars,  such 
as  Alford,  Salmon,  Barde  e.  a.  the  opinion  is  generally  held 
that  Luke  wrote  his  second  book  before  the  death  of  Paul 
and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  because  no  mention  what- 
ever is  made  of  either  one  of  these  important  facts.  Zahn 
and  Weiss  naturally  date  it  about  A.  D.  80,  since  they  regard 
this  date  as  the  terminus  ad  quem  for  the  composition  of  the 
third  gospel.  Many  of  the  later  rationalistic  critics  too  are 
of  the  opinion  that  the  book  was  written  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  some  even  placing  it  as  late  as  A.  D.  110 
(Baljon)  and  120  (Davidson).  Their  reasons  for  doing  this 
are:  (1)  the  supposed  dependence  of  Luke  on  Josephus ; 
(2)  the  assumption,  based  on  Lk.  21:20;  Acts  8:26  fif. 
that  Jerusalem  was  already  destroyed  ;  and  (3)  the  supposed 
fact  that  the  state  of  affairs  in  the  book  points  to  a  time, 
when  the  state  had  begun  to  persecute  Christians  on  poli- 
tical grounds.  None  of  these  reasons  are  conclusive,  and 
we  see  no  reasons  to  place  the  book  later  than  A.  D.  63. 
The  place  of  composition  was  in  all  probability  Rome. 

3.  Method.  The  problem  of  the  sources  used  by  Luke 
in  the  composition  of  this  book  has  given  rise  to  several 
theories,  that  we  cannot  discuss  here.  And  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  we  should  do  this,  because,  as  Zahn  maintains,  none 
of  these  repeated  attempts  has  attained  any  measure  of 
probability  ;  and  Headlam  says  :  "The  statement  of  them  is 
really  a  sufficient  condemnation."  Hastings  D.  B.  Art.  Acts 
of  the  Apostles.  For  a  good  discussion  of  the  various  theor- 
ies of  Van  Manen,  Sorof,  Spitta  and  Clemen  cf.  Knowling's 
Introduction  to  Acts  in  the  Expositor's  Greek  Testament. 
With  Blass  we  believe  that,  if  Luke  is  the  author,  the  ques- 
tion of  sources  for  the  greater  part  of  the  book  need  not  be 
raised.  The  writer  may  have  learnt  the  early  history  of  the 
Jerusalem  church  from  Barnabas  at  Antioch  and  from  sev- 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  127 

eral  others  who  found  refuge  in  that  city  after  the  perse- 
cution ;  from  Philip,  whose  guest  he  was  for  several  days, 
21 : 8-15,  and  with  whom  he  must  have  had  frequent  inter- 
course during  Paul's  later  stay  at  Cesarea ;  and  from 
Mnason,  an  old  disciple,  21  :  16.  And  regarding  the  mis- 
sionary journeys  of  Paul  he,  in  all  probability,  received  full 
information  from  the  apostle  himself,  and  could  partly  draw 
on  his  own  memory  or  memorandum.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  the  author  had  written  records  of  the  speeches  of  Peter 
and  Paul,  but  he  certainly  did  not  reproduce  them  literally 
but  colored  them  in  part  with  his  own  style. 

INSPIRATION. 

The  book  of  Acts  is  a  part  of  the  inspired  Word  of  God. 
We  have  in  it  the  fruit  of  apostolic  inspiration,  in  so  far  as 
we  find  here  speeches  of  some  of  the  apostles  and  of 
Stephen,  who  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  when  he  de- 
fended his  course  before  the  Jewish  council,  6:  5,  10.  And 
in  the  composition  of  his  book  Luke  was  guided  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  so  that  the  whole  work  must  be  regarded  as  a  product 
of  graphical  inspiration.  This  follows  from  the  fact  that 
this  book  is  a  necessary  complement  of  the  Gospels,  which 
are,  as  we  have  seen,  inspired  records.  It  is  a  continuation 
of  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  that  is  quoted  as  Scripture  in  I  Tim. 
5:18  (cf.  Luke  10:7).  If  the  Gospel  is  inspired,  then, 
assuredly,  the  work  that  continues  its  narrative  is  also  writ- 
ten by  inspiration.  Moreover  we  find  that  the  Church 
fathers  from  the  earliest  time  appeal  to  this  book  as  of 
divine  authority, — as  an  inspired  work. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  place  of  Acts  in  the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture  has 
never  been  disputed  by  the  early  Church,  except  by  such 
heretical  sects  as  the  Marcionites,  the  Ebionites  and  the 
Manichaeans,  and  then  only  on  dogmatical  grounds.  Traces 
of  acquaintance  with  it  are  found  in  the  apostolic  fathers,  as 
also  in  Justin  and  Tatian.    Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria 


128  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

and  Tertullian  frequently  quote  from  this  book.  It  is  named 
in  the  Muratorian  canon,  and  is  also  contained  in  the  Syriac 
and  old  Latin  Versions.  These  testimonies  are  quite  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  it  was  generally  accepted. 

As  an  integral  part  of  Scripture  it  is  inseparably  con- 
nected with  the  Gospels,  and  reveals  to  us,  how  the  Gospel 
was  embodied  in  the  life  and  institution  of  the  Church.  We 
here  see  that  the  sowing  of  the  precious  seed  that  was  en- 
trusted to  the  apostles  resulted  in  the  planting  and  extension 
of  the  Church  from  three  great  racial  centers  of  the  world, 
from  Jerusalem,  the  center  of  the  Jewish  Theocracy,  from 
Antioch,  the  center  of  Greek  culture,  and  from  Rome,  the 
capital  of  the  world.  The  Gospels  contain  a  revelation  of 
what  Jesus  began  to  do  and  to  teach ;  the  book  of  Acts 
shows  us  what  he  continued  to  do  and  to  teach  through  the 
ministry  of  men.  There  is  an  evident  advance  in  the  teach- 
ing of  the  apostles ;  they  have  learnt  to  understand  much 
that  was  once  a  mystery  to  them.  In  the  Gospels  we  find 
that  they  are  forbidden  to  tell  anyone  that  Jesus  is  the  Mes- 
siah ;  here  we  read  repeatedly  that  they  preach  Christ  and 
the  resurrection.  They  now  exhibit  Christ  in  his  true  char- 
acter as  the  Prince  of  Life  and  as  the  King  of  Glory.  And 
the  effect  of  their  teaching  was  such  as  to  bear  striking  evi- 
dence to  the  regenerating  power  of  Him,  who  by  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead  was  powerfully  declared  to  be  the 
Son  of  God. 


The  Epistles  in  General. 


THE  EPISTOLARY  FORM  IN  BIBLICAL 
LITERATURE. 

The  revelation  of  God  comes  to  us  in  many  forms,  in 
diverse  manners.  It  is  not  only  embodied  in  facts,  but  also 
in  words ;  it  is  borne  not  only  by  the  prophets,  but  also  by 
the  sweet  singers  and  by  the  wise  men  of  Israel ;  it  finds  ex- 
pression not  only  in  the  Gospels,  but  also  in  the  Epistles. 
About  one-third  of  the  New  Testament  is  cast  in  the  episto- 
lary form. 

This  form  of  teaching  was  not  something  absolutely  new 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  although  we  find  but  few  traces 
of  it  in  the  Old  Testament.  Mention  is  made  there  of  some 
letters  written  by  kings  and  prophets,  f.  i.  in  I  Kings  21:8, 
9 ;  II  Kings  5  :  5-7 ;  19 :  14 ;  20 :  12 ;  Jer.  29 :  1 ;  but  these  are 
quite  different  from  our  New  Testament  Epistles.  The 
letter  as  a  particular  type  of  self-expression  took  its  rise, 
so  it  seems,  among  the  Greeks  and  the  Egyptians.  In  later 
time  it  was  also  found  among  the  Romans  and  in  Hellenistic 
Judaism,  as  we  notice  from  the  epistle  of  Aristion,  that 
treats  of  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint.  According  to  Deiss- 
mann  the  Egyptian  papyri  especially  offer  a  great  amount 
of  material  for  comparison. 

In  all  probability,  however,  it  was  Paul  who  first  intro- 
duced the  epistle  as  a  distinct  type  of  literary  form  for  the 
conveyance  of  divine  truth.  Aside  from  the  Gospels  his 
Epistles  form  the  most  prominent  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  this  connection  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  the  im- 
portant distinction  made  by  Deissmann  between  a  letter  and 
an  epistle,  of  which  the  former  is  non-literary,  or,  as  J.  V. 
Bartlet  says,  "pre-literary,"  and  the  latter  is  a  literary  artis- 


130  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

tic  form  of  communication.  It  is  Deissmann's  conviction 
that  the  writings  of  Paul  have  been  very  much  misunder- 
stood. "They  have  been  regarded  as  treatises,  as  pamph- 
lets in  letter  form,  or  at  any  rate  as  literary  productions, 
as  the  theological  works  of  the  primitive  Christian  dogma- 
tist." He  insists  that  they  are  letters,  serving  the  purpose 
of  communication  between  Paul  and  the  congregations, 
letters  that  were  not  intended  by  Paul  for  publication,  but 
only  for  the  private  use  of  the  addressees,  arising  from  some 
historical  exigency,  unsystematic  and  pulsating  with  the  life 
of  the  writer.  Deissmann,  St.  Paul  p.  7  if.  This  writer 
certainly  rendered  us  good  service  by  calling  attention  to  the 
fact,  often  lost  sight  of,  that  the  Epistles  of  Paul  are  the 
living  spontaneous  expression  of  a  great  mind,  continually 
meditating  and  reflecting  on  the  truth  of  God ;  that  they  are 
letters,  often  clearly  revealing  the  changing  moods  of  the 
apostle.  They  are  marked  as  letters  by  their  occasional 
character,  by  their  being  calculated  for  a  single  community 
and  situation,  and  by  their  addresses,  praescripts  and  salu- 
tations. 

With  respect  to  the  fitness  of  this  form  for  the  communi- 
cation of  the  divine  thoughts  the  remarks  of  Bernard  are 
very  valuable.  He  finds  that  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  "with 
that  open  and  equal  participation  of  revealed  truth,  which  is 
the  prerogative  of  the  later  above  the  former  dispensation ; 
indicating  too  that  the  teacher  and  the  taught  are  placed  on 
one  common  level  in  the  fellowship  of  the  truth.  The 
prophets  delivered  oracles  to  the  People,  but  the  apostles 
wrote  letters  to  the  brethren,  letters  characterized  by  all  that 
fulness  of  unreserved  explanation,  and  that  play  of  various 
feeling,  which  are  proper  to  that  form  of  intercourse.  It 
is  in  its  nature  a  more  familiar  communication,  as  between 
those  who  are  or  should  be  equals."  .  .  .  "The  form  adopted 
in  the  New  Testament  combines  the  advantages  of  the  treat- 
ise and  the  conversation.  The  letter  may  treat  important 
subjects  with  accuracy  and  fulness,  but  it  will  do  so  in  imme- 
diate connection  with  actual  life.     It  is  written  to  meet  any 


THE  EPISTLES  IN  GENERAL  131 

occasion.  It  is  addressed  to  peculiar  states  of  mind.  It 
breathes  of  the  heart  of  the  writer.  It  takes  its  aim  from 
the  exigencies,  and  its  tone  from  the  feeHngs  of  the  mo- 
ment." Bernard,  The  Progress  of  Doctrine  in  the  N.  T. 
pp.  156,  157. 

THE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  EPISTLES. 

The  Scriptural  Epistles  are  as  well  as  the  Gospels  and 
Acts  divinely  inspired.  Even  as  in  their  preaching,  so  also 
in  writing  their  letters  the  apostles  were  guided  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Here  again  we  must  distinguish  between  the  apos- 
tolic and  the  graphical  inspiration,  although  in  this  case  the 
two  are  very  closely  connected.  For  a  general  description  of 
the  apostolic  inspiration  we  refer  to  p.  30  ff.  above.  It  is 
necessary  to  remark,  however,  that  in  the  case  of  the 
Epistles,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  the  Gospels,  it  did 
not  almost  exclusively  assume  the  character  of  a  uTCOfjLv^aK;, 
but  was  also  to  a  great  extent  a  StSaaxaXia.  Both  of  those 
elements  are  indicated  in  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
given  by  Christ  before  his  departure :  "But  the  Comforter, 
even  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name. 
He  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to  your  remembrance 
all  that  I  said  unto  you."  John  14:  26.  Cf.  also  16:  12,  13.  In 
the  Gospels  we  have  the  totality  of  the  apostolic  Y,ripuy[i(x ; 
hence  their  production  naturally  depended  in  great  measure 
on  a  faithful  memory.  The  Epistles,  on  the  other  hand, 
contain  the  fruit  of  the  apostles'  reflection  on  this  xi^puytAa, 
their  interpretation  of  it.  Therefore  it  was  not  sufficient 
that  the  writers  in  composing  them  should  faithfully  remem- 
ber former  things ;  they  needed  more  light  on  them,  a 
better  understanding  of  their  real  meaning  and  profound 
significance.     For  that  reason  the  Holy  Spirit  became  their 

The  apostles  were  evidently  conscious  of  being  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  composition  of  their  Epistles.  This 
follows  from  the  authority  with  which  they  address  the  con- 


132  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

gregations.  They  feel  sure  that  their  word  is  binding  on 
the  conscience ;  they  condemn  in  unquahfied  terms  those 
who  teach  any  other  doctrine  as  coming  from  God ;  they 
commend  and  praise  all  that  diligently  follow  their  direc- 
tions ;  but  they  also  reprimand  and  censure  those  that  dare 
to  follow  another  course.  If  this  is  not  due  to  the  fact  that 
they  were  conscious  of  divine  inspiration,  it  bespeaks  an 
overweening  arrogance ;  which,  however  cannot  be  harmon- 
ized with  their  life  of  service  and  their  many  expressions  of 
deep  humility. 

Moreover  there  are  several  explicit  statements  in  the 
Epistles  testifying  to  the  fact  that  the  apostles  were  aware 
of  being  the  instruments  of  God's  Spirit.  Thus  Paul  claims 
that  the  Spirit  revealed  to  him  the  hidden  things  of  God, 
which  he  also  spoke,  not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom 
taught,  but  in  words  which  the  Spirit  taught,  I  Cor.  2 :  10, 
13.  He  is  willing  to  subject  his  words  to  the  judgment  of 
the  prophets,  I  Cor.  14 :  37 ;  and  to  give  a  proof  of  Christ 
speaking  in  him,  II  Cor.  13:3.  He  thanks  God  that  the 
Thessalonians  received  the  word  of  his  message,  not  as  the 
word  of  man,  "but  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God,"  I 
Thess.  2:13;  and  admonishes  them  to  hold  the  traditions 
which  they  were  taught  by  his  word  or  by  his  Epistle.  Peter 
places  the  word  of  the  prophets  and  that  of  the  apostles  on 
a  level  as  the  Word  of  God,  in  I  Pet.  1 :  10-12 ;  and  else- 
where he  arranges  his  Epistle  alongside  of  those  of  Paul, 
which  he  calls  Scripture  by  implication,  and  thus  clearly 
shows  that  he  also  regards  his  own  writing  as  a  product  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  II  Pet.  3  :  15,  16.  John  writes :  "We  are 
of  God ;  he  that  knoweth  God  knoweth  us ;  he  that  is  not  of 
God  knoweth  us  not.  By  this  we  know  the  spirit  of  truth 
and  the  spirit  of  error."  1  John  4 : 6.  This  language  is 
intelligible  only  on  the  supposition  that  John  spoke  the 
words  of  God. 

Now  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  apostles  speak  thus 
regarding  their  written  words,  so  that  they  were  evidently 
conscious  of  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  writing  their 


THE  EPISTLES  IN  GENERAL  133 

Epistles.  To  that  extent  they  too  shared  in  a  separate  tran- 
scriptive  inspiration.  Their  Epistles  are  a  part  of  the  Word 
of  God,  and  have  been  accepted  as  such  by  the  Church.  It 
is  true  that  for  a  time  five  of  them,  viz.,  the  Epistles  of 
James  and  Jude,  II  Peter  and  II  and  III  John,  were  classed 
as  antilegomena,  but  this  only  means  that  their  canonicity 
was  subject  to  doubt  and  dispute  for  a  while,  not  that  they 
were  ever  numbered  among  the  spurious  books.  They  have 
been  recognized  by  the  majority  of  ecclesiastical  writers 
from  the  very  beginning,  and  were  generally  accepted  by 
the  Church  after  the  council  of  Laodicea  in  A.  D.  363. 

THE  CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE 
EPISTLES  IN  GENERAL. 

The  Old  and  the  New  Testament  revelations  run  on 
parallel  lines.  In  the  Old  Testament  we  have  the  funda- 
mental revelation  of  the  Law  in  the  Pentateuch ;  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  fundamental  revelation  of  the  Gospel  in  the 
fourfold  witness  of  the  evangelists.  This  is  followed  in  the 
Old  Testament  by  the  historical  books,  revealing  the  institu- 
tions to  which  the  Law  gave  rise ;  and  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, by  a  historical  book,  showing  how  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  found  embodiment  in  the  Church.  After  this 
we  find  in  the  New  Testament  the  Epistles  that  reveal  the 
operation  of  the  truth  in  the  churches,  and  contain,  in  con- 
nection with  the  life  of  the  churches,  the  interpretation  of 
the  Gospel ;  thus  corresponding  in  part  to  the  Old  Testament 
books  of  experience,  such  as  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  etc., 
and  in  part  to  the  prophets  as  interpreters  of  the  Law.  The 
Gospels  show  us,  how  Christ  was  preached  to  the  world ; 
the  Epistles,  how  he  was  taught  to  the  Church.  The  former 
contain  the  facts  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ ;  the  latter 
the  effects  of  it  in  the  spiritual  experience  of  the  churches. 

In  the  Epistles  we  get  a  glimpse  of  the  inner  life  of  the 
congregations ;  we  see,  how  they  receive  the  truth  and  to 
what  degree  they  are  guided  by  it  in  their  actions.  We 
behold  Christian  life  in  operation,  working  on  the  great 


134  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

principles  that  have  been  received.  We  find  that  some 
heartily  embrace  the  truth  and  endeavor  to  apply  it  consist- 
ently to  life  in  its  manifold  forms ;  that  others  grasp  it  but 
imperfectly  and,  as  a  result,  misapply  it  in  practical  life ; 
and  that  still  others  resist  the  truth  and  pervert  it  to  their 
own  condemnation.  And  in  connection  with  these  condi- 
tions the  truth  is  now  set  forth  and  interpreted  and  applied 
to  the  multifarious  relations  of  life. 

This  teaching-  is  given  in  the  epistolary  form,  of  which 
we  have  already  spoken.  Cf.  p.  129  above.  And  the  method 
employed  by  the  writers  in  presenting  the  truth  is,  as  Ber- 
nard says,  "one  of  companionship  rather  than  of  dictation." 
They  do  not  announce  a  series  of  revelations  that  come  to 
them  from  without,  but  they  speak  out  of  the  fulness  of 
their  own  Christian  knowledge  and  experience.  Neither  do 
they  approach  their  readers  with  the  authoritative  prophetic 
formula,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  which  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  the  end  of  all  contradiction;  but  they  appeal  to 
the  judgment  and  conscience  of  those  whom  they  address. 
They  state  their  propositions  and  then  substantiate  them  by 
giving  the  grounds  on  which  they  rest.  They  argue  with 
their  readers  from  the  Old  Testament,  from  generally  ad- 
mitted truths  and  from  experience,  often  employing  the 
argumentum  ad  hominem  to  give  point  to  their  teachings ; 
and  they  intercept  the  objections  of  their  readers  and  refute 
them.  This  method  of  teaching,  as  compared  with  that  of 
the  prophets,  is  more  truly  human,  the  divine  factor  being 
less  prominent ;  and  as  compared  with  that  of  Christ  in  the 
Gospels,  is  far  more  argumentative,  calculated  to  train  the 
minds  of  men  to  that  thoughtf  ulness  that  leads  to  a  thorough 
assimilation  of  the  truth. 

In  their  contents  as  well  as  in  their  form  the  Epistles 
are  a  distinct  advance  on  the  Gospels.  After  the  latter  have 
presented  to  us  the  manifestation  of  Christ  in  the  world,  the 
former  treat  of  the  life  in  Christ,  in  which  the  acceptance  of 
his  manifestation  issues.  After  the  Spirit  of  God  has  been 
poured  out,  Christ,  who  had  formerly  dwelt  among  men, 


THE  EPISTLES  IN  GENERAL  135 

makes  his  abode  in  the  very  hearts  of  believers.  Hence  it  is 
especially  of  that  new  life  of  believers  in  union  with  Christ, 
that  the  Epistles  speak.  They  constantly  emphasize  the  fact 
that  the  individual  believers  and  that  the  churches  are  "in 
Christ,"  and  that  therefore  their  conversation  too  must  be 
"in  Christ."  They  clearly  interpret  the  significance  of 
Christ's  work  for  believers  out  of  every  nation  and  tribe, 
and  point  out  that  his  experiences  are  paralleled  in  the  life 
of  every  believer.  All  those  that  are  united  with  Christ  by 
faith  suffer  with  Christ,  are  crucified  with  Christ,  die  with 
Christ,  and  live  with  Christ  in  newness  of  life.  And  their 
future  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.  The  origin  of  that 
new  life,  its  conditions,  its  nature,  its  progressive  and  com- 
munal character,  and  its  final  perfection  and  glory, — are  all 
clearly  described  in  the  Epistles.  As  the  foundation  on 
which  all  these'  blessings  rest  we  are  pointed  to  the  redemp- 
tive, the  justifying,  the  sanctifying,  and  the  intercessory 
work  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  the  beginning  and  the  end. 
The  Epistles  contain  clear  evidence  that  believers  are  gath- 
ered from  every  nation  and  tribe  to  Christ  who  is  the  Head 
of  the  Church,  and  in  whom  they  are  builded  together  for 
a  habitation  of  God  in  the  Spirit,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all. 

CLASSIFICATION. 

The  New  Testament  contains  in  all  twenty-one  Epistles, 
which  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  viz.,  1.  The  Pauline 
Epistles ;  and,  2.  The  General  Epistles. 

1.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  Thirteen  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Epistles  bear  the  name  of  the  great  apostle  to  the 
gentiles.  Hence  they  are  generally  known  as  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  By  some  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  added  to 
this  number,  though  it  nowhere  claims  to  have  been  written 
by  Paul.  The  Church  has  always  been  divided  on  the  ques- 
tion of  its  authorship,  the  Eastern  church  affirming  and  the 
Western  denying  that  Paul  wrote  it.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
states  that  the  apostle  composed  it  in  the  Hebrew  language, 
and  that  Luke  translated  it  into  Greek.     From  a  statement 


136  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

of  his  we  may  probably  infer  that  his  teacher,  Pantaenus, 
also  affirmed  the  Pauline  authorship  of  this  Epistle,  which 
would  carry  the  testimony  back  another  generation.  Origen 
admits  that  a  very  old  tradition  points  to  Paul  as  the  author, 
but  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  only  God  knows  who 
wrote  the  book.  Irenaeus  does  not  attribute  the  Epistle  to 
Paul;  nor  does  Tertullian,  who  regards  Barnabas  as  the 
author.  Eusebius  says :  "Of  Paul  the  fourteen  Epistles 
commonly  received  are  at  once  manifest  and  clear.  It  is 
not,  however,  right  to  ignore  the  fact  that  some  have  rejected 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  asserting  that  it  is  gainsaid  by 
the  church  of  Rome  as  not  being  Paul's."  He  was  inclined 
to  believe  that  the  apostle  wrote  it  in  Hebrew  and  that  Luke, 
or  more  likely,  Clement  of  Rome  translated  it.  The  cata- 
logue of  the  council  of  Laodicea  also  speaks  of  fourteen 
Epistles  of  Paul.  We  shall  leave  the  question  of  the  author- 
ship of  this  Epistle  in  suspense  for  the  present,  and  classify 
the  fourteen  Epistles  of  which  we  have  now  spoken,  as 
follows : 
I.     Pauline  Epistles : 

1.  Those  written  during  the  period  of  Paul's  mission- 
ary activity : 

a.  The  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians ; 

b.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  ; 

c.  The  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians ; 

d.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

2.  Those  written  during  Paul's  imprisonment : 

a.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians ; 

b.  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians ; 

c.  The  Epistle  to  Philemon  ; 

d.  The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

3.  Those  written  after  Paul's  release  from  the  Roman 
prison : 

a.  The  two  Epistles  to  Timothy  ; 

b.  The  Epistle  to  Titus. 
n.     Of  uncertain  Authorship : 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


THE  EPISTLES  IN  GENERAL  137 

It  may  well  be  supposed  that  Paul  who  always  remained 
in  touch  with  the  churches  he  founded  wrote  many  more 
letters  than  we  now  possess  of  him.  This  is  evident  also 
from  the  Epistles  themselves.  I  Cor.  5 :  9  refers  to  a  letter 
now  lost,  and  it  is  possible  that  II  Cor.  7 : 8  does  also, 
although  this  may  refer  to  first  Corinthians.  Col.  4 :  16 
speaks  of  a  letter  out  of  (ex)  Laodicea,  of  which  we  have 
no  further  knowledge.  Although  these  letters  were  un- 
doubtedly inspired  as  well  as  the  ones  we  still  possess,  we 
may  rest  assured  that  no  Epistle  intended  by  God  for  the 
canon  of  Holy  Scriptures  was  ever  lost. 

We  may  further  remark  that  Paul  evidently  wrote  very 
little  with  his  own  hand ;  he  generally  employed  an  amanu- 
ensis in  the  corpposition  of  his  Epistles  and  merely  added 
with  his  own  hand  the  salutation  to  his  friends  and  the 
authenticating  signature,  cf.  II  Thess.  3:17;  Philem.  19; 
and  Gal.  6:11,  which  is,  however,  of  uncertain  interpreta- 
tion. Only  in  one  letter  do  we  find  a  definite  designation  of 
the  amanuensis,  viz.,  in  Rom.  16:  22. 

2.  The  General  Epistles.  This  is  a  group  of  seven 
Epistles  which  in  the  old  manuscripts  usually  follows  imme- 
diately after  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  therefore  precedes 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  perhaps  because  they  are  the  works  of 
the  older  apostles  and  in  general  represent  the  Jewish  type 
of  Christianity.  Their  representation  of  the  truth  naturally 
dififers  from  that  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  but  is  in  perfect 
harmony  with  it.    Among  these  general  Epistles  there  are : 

1.  Those  written  to  a  community  of  Christians: 

a.  The  Epistle  of  James  ; 

b.  The  two  Epistles  of  Peter ; 

c.  The  first  Epistle  of  John ; 

d.  The  Epistle  of  Jude. 

2.  Those  written  to  a  certain  individual : 

a.  The  second  Epistle  of  John  ;  (  ?) 

b.  The  third  Epistle  of  John. 


138  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 


Of  these  seven  Epistles  the  first  one  of  Peter  and  the 
first  one  of  John  were  generally  accepted  as  canonical  from 
the  beginning,  while  the  other  five  were  at  first  subject  to 
doubt  and  only  gradually  found  acceptance  throughout  the 
Church.    Yet  they  were  never  regarded  as  spurious. 

Why  these  Epistles  should  be  called  general  or  catholic, 
is  more  or  less  of  an  enigma.  Various  interpretations  of  the 
name  have  been  given,  but  none  of  them  is  entirely  satis- 
factory. Some  hold  that  they  were  so  called,  because  they 
contain  the  one  catholic  doctrine  which  was  delivered  to  the 
churches  by  the  apostles ;  but  this  is  not  a  characteristic 
mark  of  these  Epistles,  since  those  of  Paul  contain  the  same 
doctrine.  Others  maintain  that  the  adjective  catholic  was 
used  by  some  of  the  church  fathers  in  the  sense  of  canonical, 
and  was  by  them  applied  first  to  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter 
and  the  first  of  John  to  indicate  their  general  acceptance, 
and  afterwards  to  the  entire  group.  But  this  explanation  is 
unlikely,  because  (1)  there  is  scant  proof  that  the  term 
catholic  was  ever  equivalent  to  canonical ;  and  (2)  it  is  hard 
to  see,  if  this  really  was  the  case,  why  the  term  should  not 
have  been  applied  to  the  Pauline  Epistles  as  well,  that  were 
all  accepted  from  the  beginning.  Still  others  think  that  they 
received  this  appellation,  because  they  were  not  addressed 
to  one  person  or  church  like  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  but  to 
large  sections  of  the  Church.  We  consider  this  to  be  the 
best  explanation  of  the  name,  since  it  is  most  in  harmony 
with  the  usual  meaning  of  the  term,  and  accounts  best  for 
the  way  in  which  it  is  used  in  patristic  literature.  Even  so, 
however  the  name  cannot  be  regarded  as  entirely  correct, 
because  on  the  one  hand  the  second  ( ?)  and  third  Epistles 
of  John  are  written  to  individuals,  and  on  the  other,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  also  an  encyclical  letter.  These 
two  Epistles  of  John  were  probably  included  in  this  group, 
because  of  their  smallness  and  close  relation  to  the  first 
Epistle  of  John. 


The  Epistles  of  Paul. 


PAUL. 

There  is  no  apostle  of  whose  life  we  have  such  full  in- 
formation as  we  have  regarding  that  of  Paul.  He  was  born 
of  Hebrew  parents  in  the  intellectual  atmosphere  of  Tarsus 
in  Cilicia,  where  besides  receiving  the  regular  Jewish  educa- 
tion, he  may  have  visited  one  of  the  many  Greek  schools 
found  there.  Being  exceptionally  bright,  he  was  sent  to 
Jerusalem  to  complete  the  study  of  the  law  and  to  be  intro- 
duced into  rabbinic  lore.  In  that  center  of  Jewish  learning 
he  received  instruction  at  the  feet  of  the  greatest  Jewish 
teacher  of  his  age,  Gamaliel  I,  and  a  bright  future  was 
opening  up  before  him,  since  he  was  zealous  for  the  law. 

We  first  meet  him  in  Scripture  as  a  youth  in  connection 
with  the  violent  death  of  Stephen,  and  soon  find  in  him  the 
most  active  persecuter  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  After  he 
has  finished  his  destructive  work  at  Jerusalem,  he  repairs  to 
Damascus  with  authority  from  the  high  priest  to  persecute 
the  Church  in  that  city.  On  the  way  thither  his  course  is 
checked  by  the  Lord  of  the  Church,  he  becomes  a  penitent, 
and  turns  into  a  zealous  advocate  of  the  principles  that  were 
formerly  obnoxious  to  him.  Leaving  Damascus,  he  spent 
three  years  in  Arabia,  where  he  received  further  instruction 
from  God  himself,  and  he  learnt  to  adjust  himself  to  the 
new  conditions  of  life ;  after  which  he  again  returned  to 
Damascus.  Being  threatened  with  death  at  the  hands  of  the 
Jews,  he  fled  from  Damascus  to  Jerusalem,  and  from  Jeru- 
salem to  his  native  city  in  Cilicia.  After  laboring  there 
for  some  years,  he  accompanied  Barnabas  to  Antioch  in 
Syria,  where  he  aided  in  establishing  the  youthful  church  in 
that  city.     He  ministered  to  the  needs  of  that  congregation 


140  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

for  a  whole  year,  during  which  time  he  and  Barnabas  also 
went  to  Jerusalem  to  bring  the  contributions  for  the  poor. 
Soon  after  they  were  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  preach 
the  Gospel  among  the  Gentiles.  On  this  first  journey  they 
labored  on  the  island  of  Cyprus  and  in  Pisidian  Antioch, 
Iconium,  Lystra  and  Derbe,  preaching  the  Gospel  and  work- 
ing miracles.  Notwithstanding  fierce  opposition  from  the 
Jews,  they  succeeded  in  founding  several  churches.  Having 
finished  their  work,  they  returned  to  Antioch  in  Syria,  and 
during  their  stay  there  were  delegated  to  the  council  of 
Jerusalem  to  consult  the  mother  church  regarding  the  de- 
bated question,  whether  circumcision  was  binding  on  the 
Gentiles.  Next  Paul  sets  out  on  his  second  missionary 
journey  with  Silas,  revisiting  the  churches  founded  on  the 
first  tour  and  by  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit  crossing 
over  to  Europe,  where  he  labored  with  varying  success  at 
Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Berea,  Athens  and  Corinth,  found- 
ing churches  in  most  of  these  places.  From  Corinth  he 
returned  to  Antioch,  after  first  visiting  Jerusalem.  His 
third  missionary  journey  followed  shortly.  Passing  through 
Asia  Minor,  he  finds  a  fruitful  field  of  labor  in  Ephesus, 
where  he  remains  three  years,  bringing  all  Asia  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  and  contending  with  idolatry  and 
superstition.  From  there  he  again  passes  through  Mace- 
donia to  Corinth,  spending  the  winter  in  that  city,  and  then 
returning  by  way  of  Troas,  Ephesus  and  Cesarea  to  Jeru- 
salem. Here  he  takes  the  necessary  precautions  to  avoid  all 
possible  provocation  of  the  Jews,  but  notwithstanding  this 
they  seek  to  kill  him.  Having  been  rescued  by  the  chief 
captain,  he  defends  his  course  before  the  Jews.  This  only 
increases  their  rage,  however;  wherefore  he  is  taken  into 
the  castle  and  is  brought  before  the  Sanhedrin  on  the  fol- 
lowing day,  where  his  defense  leads  to  dissension  between 
the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees.  In  the  following  night 
he  receives  encouragement  from  the  Lord  and  is  told  that 
he  must  also  bear  witness  in  Rome.  On  account  of  a  plot 
laid  by  the  Jews  he  is  transferred  to  Cesarea,  where  he 


THE  EPISTLES  OF  PAUL  141 


again  defends  his  course  before  Felix,  Festus  and  Agrippa. 
The  wavering  attitude  of  the  governors,  who  are  convinced 
of  his  innocence  and  yet  desire  to  favor  the  Jews,  induces 
him  to  appeal  to  Ceasar.  As  a  result  he  is  taken  to  Rome, 
arriving  there  after  suffering  shipwreck,  and  remaining  a 
prisoner  in  his  own  dwelHng  for  two  years.  From  the  pas- 
toral epistles  and  tradition  we  may  infer  that  his  first  trial 
ended  in  acquittal.  His  movements  after  this  are  uncertain, 
though  there  are  hints  of  visits  to  Philippi,  Colossae,  Ephe- 
sus,  Crete,  Nicopolis  and  even  Spain.  After  being  impris- 
oned again  he  was  condemned  and  died  as  a  martyr  in 
A.  D.  68. 

Little  can  be  said  regarding  the  personal  appearance  of 
the  great  apostle.  In  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  he  is 
represented  as  "short,  bald,  bow-legged,  with  meeting  eye- 
brows, hooked  nose,  full  of  grace."  John  of  Antioch  pre- 
serves a  similar  tradition,  which  adds,  however,  that  he  was 
"round-shouldered  and  had  a  mixture  of  pale  and  red  in  his 
complexion  and  an  ample  beard."  His  opponents  at  Corinth 
said  of  him :  "His  letters  are  weighty  and  powerful,  but 
his  bodily  presence  is  weak  and  his  speech  contemptible," 
n  Cor.  10:  10  ff.  He  himself  refers  once  and  again  to  his 
physical  weaknesses.  In  all  probability  he  was  not  a  man  of 
magnificent  physique. 

His  personal  life  was  full  of  contrasts,  as  Deissmann 
correctly  observes.  He  was  encumbered  with  an  ailing 
body,  and  yet  was  a  man  of  great  endurance  and  of  almost 
unlimited  capacity  for  work  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The 
secret  of  his  strength  lay  in  his  God,  who  spoke  to  him : 
"My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee,  and  my  strength  is  made 
perfect  in  weakness."  He  was  a  man  of  great  humility,  but 
was  at  the  same  time  capable  of  uttering  words  of  the  great- 
est self-confidence,  "before  God  a  worm,  before  men  an 
eagle"  (Deissmann).  It  is  Paul  that  says:  "I  am  the  least 
of  the  apostles,"  I  Cor.  15:9;  "I  am  less  than  the  least  of 
all  the  saints,"  Eph.  3:8;  and:  "of  whom  (sinners)  I  am 
chief,"  I  Tim.  1 :  16.     But  it  is  the  same  Paul  that  speaks : 


142  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

"I  labored  more  abundantly  than  they  all,"  I  Cor.  15:  10; 
and :  "For  I  suppose  I  was  not  a  whit  behind  the  very 
chief  est  apostles,"  II  Cor.  11:5.  But  he  reahzes  that  all 
that  is  commendable  in  him  and  that  is  praiseworthy  in  his 
work,  is  fruit  of  the  grace  of  God.  Hence  he  follows  up  the 
statement  in  I  Cor.  15:  10  by  saying:  "yet  not  I,  but  the 
grace  of  God  which  was  with  me."  Paul  was  a  tender- 
hearted man,  and  was  yet  on  certain  occasions  very  severe. 
He  was  capable  of  the  most  affectionate  feeling,  always 
solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  the  churches;  but  just  on  that 
account  inexorable  over  against  all  those  that  were  enemies 
to  the  truth.  Compare  in  this  respect  the  epistle  to  the 
Philippians  with  that  to  the  Galatians.  He  placed  himself 
entirely  at  God's  disposal,  following  where  He  led,  and  was 
willing  to  be  the  unworthy  instrument  in  the  hand  of  his 
Lord  in  spreading  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation.  Hence  he 
was  great  in  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

The  chronology  of  the  life  of  Paul  is  a  subject  of  great 
difficulty.  Aside  from  the  date  of  the  first  Pentecost  there 
is  but  a  single  date  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  of  which  we 
are  sure,  viz.,  that  of  the  death  of  Herod  in  A.  D.  44,  and 
this  has  little  value  in  determining  the  chronological  order 
of  the  events  in  Paul's  life.  A  question  of  great  importance 
is,  in  what  year  Felix  was  succeeded  by  Festus.  We  cannot 
enter  into  the  dispute  about  this  date,  but  assume  that 
Schiirer  is  correct,  when  he  fixes  it  at  A.  D.  60.  Geschichte 
des  Judischen  Volkes  I  p.  577.  In  the  same  year  Paul  was 
sent  to  Rome,  arriving  there  in  the  spring  of  the  following 
year,  A.  D.  61.  He  remained  a  prisoner  at  Rome  for  two 
years,  i.  e.,  until  A.  D.  63,  when  he  was  probably  released ; 
and  Hved  until  the  fall  of  A.  D.  67  (Eusebius),  or  until  the 
spring  of  A.  D.  68  (Jerome),  when  he  was  martyred  at 
Rome. 

Figuring  back  from  the  same  date,  we  find  that  Paul  was 
imprisoned  at  Caesarea  in  A.  D.  58,  Acts  24 :  27.  Since  he 
had  spent  the  previous  winter  in  Corinth  and  the  fall  in 
Macedonia,  Acts  20 : 2,  3,  and  had  labored  in  Ephesus  for  a 
period  of  three  years.  Acts  20:  31,  he  must  have  begun  his 


THE   EPISTLES  OF  PAUL  143 

third  missionary  journey  in  the  spring  of  A.  D.  54.  His 
second  missionary  tour  was  concluded  shortly  before,  prob- 
ably in  the  fall  of  A.  D.  53,  Acts  16:23.  This  journey 
undoubtedly  lasted  about  two  years  and  a  half,  since  the 
apostle  would  naturally  set  out  in  the  spring  of  the  year  and 
his  stay  of  a  year  and  a  half  at  Corinth  together  with  all  the 
work  done  in  other  places  makes  it  impossible  that  he  started 
on  his  journey  in  A.  D,  52,  cf.  Acts  15  :  36 — 17:  34.  Hence 
the  second  journey  began  in  A.  D.  51.  This  second  journey 
was  preceded  by  the  council  of  Jerusalem  that  most  likely 
convened  in  A.  D.  50,  Acts  15.  The  first  missionary  journey 
must  be  placed  somewhere  between  the  date  just  named  and 
the  year  of  Herod's  death,  A.  D.  44. 

Now  it  is  probable  that  we  must  identify  the  visit  of 
Paul  to  Jerusalem  mentioned  in  Gal.  2 :  1  with  that  of  Acts 
15.  What  is  the  apostle's  point  of  departure  there,  when 
he  says:  "Then  fourteen  years  after,  etc."?  Exegetically 
it  may  be  the  visit  spoken  of  in  Gal.  1 :  18 ;  more  likely, 
however,  it  is  the  time  of  his  conversion,  cf .  Ellicott  on  Gal., 
so  that  the  year  37  was  probably  the  year  in  which  that 
momentous  change  was  wrought  in  his  life.  Then  he  spent 
the  years  37-40  in  Arabia,  at  the  end  of  which  period  he 
again  visited  Jerusalem,  Acts  9 :  26 ;  Gal.  1  :  18.  In  the  same 
year  he  went  to  Tarsus,  where  he  labored  until  about  the 
year  of  Herod's  death.  Acts  11 :  25 — 12 :  1. 

Thus  we  obtain  the  following  result : 

Paul's  Conversion A.  D.  37 

First  Visit  to  Jerusalem A.  D.  40 

Beginning  of  his  Work  at  Antioch A.  D.  44 

First  Missionary  Journey A.  D.  45-48 

Delegated  to  the  Council  of  Jerusalem A.  D.  50 

Second  Missionary  Journey A.  D.  51-53 

Third  Missionary  Journey A.  D.  54-58 

Captivity  at  Jerusalem  and  Caesarea A.  D.  58-60 

Arrives  at  Rome A.  D.  61 

First  Captivity  at  Rome A.  D.  61-63 

Period  between  first  and  second  Captivity A.  D.  63-67 

Second  Captivity  and  Death A.  D.  67  or  68 


The  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 


CONTENTS. 

This  Epistle  consists  of  two  clearly  marked  but  very 
unequal  parts,  viz.  the  doctrinal  (1:1 — 11:36)  and  the 
practical  part  (12: 1 — 16:27). 

/.  The  Doctrinal  Part,  1 :  1 — 1 1 :  36.  In  this  part  we 
have  first  the  introduction,  containing  the  address,  the  cus- 
tomary thanksgiving  and  prayer,  and  an  expression  of  the 
apostle's  desire  to  preach  the  gospel  also  at  Rome,  1 :  1-15. 
In  the  following  two  verses  the  apostle  states  his  theme : 
"The  gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one 
that  believeth.  For  therein  is  the  righteousness  of  God  re- 
vealed from  faith  to  faith,"  1 :  16,  17.  After  announcing 
this  he  describes  the  sinful  state  of  the  Gentiles,  points  out 
that  the  Jews  are  likewise  guilty,  and  declares  that  their 
prerogatives  do  not  exempt  them  from  punishment  but 
rather  increase  their  guilt,  1 :  18 — 3 :  20.  He  then  defines 
the  righteousness  which  God  has  provided  without  the  works 
of  the  law,  and  proves  that  this  is  revealed  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  the  basis  of  a  Christian  experience  that  is  rich  in 
spiritual  fruits,  and  proceeds  on  the  same  principle  of  moral 
government  on  which  God  dealt  with  Adam,  3:21 — 5:21. 
Next  he  replies  to  the  objections  that  on  his  doctrine  men 
may  continue  in  sin  and  yet  be  saved ;  that  his  teaching  re- 
leases men  from  moral  obligation ;  and  that  it  makes  the  law 
of  God  an  evil  thing,  6:  1 — 7:  25.  In  the  following  chapter 
he  shows  that  on  the  basis  of  man's  justification  by  faith  his 
complete  sanctification  and  final  glorification  is  assured, 
8:  1-39.  Having  stated  the  way  of  salvation  through  faith, 
he  now  points  out  that  this  does  not  conflict  with  the  prom- 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  145 

ises  given  to  Israel  by  showing  that  these  pertained  only  to 
the  elect  among  them ;  that  the  rejection  of  Israel  is  due 
to  their  refusal  of  the  way  of  salvation ;  that  it  is  not  a  com- 
plete rejection;  and  that  in  the  end  the  Jews  will  be  con- 
verted and  will  turn  to  God,  9  :  1 — 1 1  :  36. 

//.  The  Practical  Part,  12 :  1 — 16 :  27.  The  apostle  ad- 
monishes the  Christians  at  Rome  that  they  be  devoted  to 
God  and  love  one  another.  12:  1-21.  He  desires  that  they 
willingly  subject  themselves  to  the  civil  authorities  and  meet 
all  their  obligations,  13:1-14.  He  enjoins  upon  them  due 
regard  for  the  weakness  of  others  in  matters  of  indifference, 
and  the  proper  use  of  their  Christian  liberty,  14 :  1-23.  Then 
he  holds  up  to  them  Christ  as  their  great  example,  and 
speaks  of  his  purpose  to  visit  Rome,  15:  1-33.  Finally  he 
sends  a  long  list  of  greetings  to  Rome  and  closes  his  epistle 
with  a  doxology,  16:  1-27. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  The  characteristic  feature  of  this  Epistle  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  most  systematic  writing  of  the 
apostle,  an  elaborate  treatment  of  a  single  theme  with  appro- 
priate practical  exhortations.  It  contains  a  careful  and 
rather  full  statement  of  what  Paul  himself  calls,  "my  Gos- 
pel," 2:  16;  16:25.  His  Gospel  is  that  man  is  justified  by 
faith  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law.  In  harmony  with 
this  theme  the  contents  of  the  Epistle  are  Soteriological 
rather  than  Christological.  The  apostle  points  out  that  both 
Gentiles  and  Jews  need  this  justification ;  that  it  is  the  v/ay 
of  salvation  provided  by  God  himself ;  that  it  yields  the 
most  blessed  spiritual  fruits  ;  that  it  does  not  issue  in  the 
moral  degradation  of  man,  but  in  a  life  sanctified  by  the 
Spirit  and  culminating  in  everlasting  glory  ;  and  that,  though 
the  Gentiles  will  have  precedence  over  the  Jews,  who  re- 
jected the  Gospel,  these  too  will  at  last  accept  it  and  be  saved. 
Godet  calls  this  Epistle,  "The  Cathedral  of  Christian  Faith." 
Because  of  its  methodical  character  some  have  mistakenly 
regarded  it  as  a  treatise  rather  than  as  a  letter.     If  it  were 


146  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

a  treatise,  it  might  have  been  sent  to  one  church  as  well  as 
another,  and  it  may  be  regarded  as  accidental  that  it  was 
sent  to  Rome.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  We  cannot  under- 
stand this,  the  greatest  of  Paul's  literary  productions,  unless 
we  study  it  historically  in  its  relation  to  the  church  of  Rome. 
2.  The  style  of  the  Epistle  is  described  by  Sanday  and 
Headlam  in  the  following  words :  "This  Epistle,  like  all 
the  others  of  the  group  (I  and  II  Cor.  and  Gal.),  is  char- 
acterized by  a  remarkable  energy  and  vivacity.  It  is  calm 
in  the  sense  that  it  is  not  aggressive  and  that  the  rush  of 
words  is  always  well  under  control.  Still  there  is  a  rush  of 
words  rising  repeatedly  to  passages  of  splendid  eloquence ; 
but  the  eloquence  is  spontaneous,  the  outcome  of  strongly 
moved  feeling ;  there  is  nothing  about  it  of  labored  oratory. 
The  language  is  rapid,  terse,  incisive ;  the  argument  is  con- 
ducted by  a  quick  cut  and  thrust  of  dialectic ;  it  reminds  us 
of  a  fencer  with  his  eye  always  on  his  antagonist."  Intern. 
Crit.  Comm.,  Romans  p.  LV. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

Both  external  and  internal  evidence  clearly  point  to  Paul 
as  the  author.  We  find  the  first  direct  evidence  for  his 
authorship  in  the  Apostolicon  of  Marcion.  The  letter  is  fur- 
ther ascribed  to  Paul  by  the  Muratori  canon,  and  is  quoted 
as  his  by  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian  and 
a  host  of  others.  The  Epistle  itself  claims  to  have  been 
written  by  Paul,  and  this  claim  is  borne  out  by  the  contents, 
so  that  even  Davidson  says :  "The  internal  character  of  the 
epistle  and  its  historical  allusions  coincide  with  the  exter- 
nal evidence  in  proving  it  an  authentic  production  of  the 
apostle."    Introd.  I  p.  119. 

The  authenticity  of  this  great  letter,  along  with  that  of 
the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  to  the  Galatians  has  been 
well-nigh  universally  admitted.  The  first  one  to  attack  it 
was  Evanson  in  1792,  followed  by  Bruno  Bauer  in  1852. 
Their  rather  reckless  criticism  has  made  little  impression  on 
German  critical  opinion.     In  more  recent  times  the  Pauline 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  147 

authorship  has  been  denied  by  the  Dutch  scholars  Loman 
(1882),  Pierson  and  Naber  (1886)  and  Van  Manen  (1892), 
and  by  the  Swiss  scholar  Steck  (1888)  ;  but  their  arguments, 
of  which  an  epitomy  may  be  found  in  Sanday-Headlam, 
Romans  p.  LXXXVI ;  Baljon,  Gesch.  v/d  Boeken  des  N .  V. 
p.  97  f  f . ;  and  Godet,  Introd.  to  the  N .  T.  I  St.  Paul's  Epis- 
tles p.  393, — failed  to  carry  conviction  among  New  Testa- 
ment critics. 

THE  CHURCH  AT  ROME. 

Regarding  the  church  to  which  this  letter  is  addressed 
there  are  especially  two  questions  that  call  for  discussion, 
viz.     1.     Its  Origin;  and    2.     Its  Composition. 

1.  Its  Origin.  There  are  three  theories  respecting  the 
origin  of  the  church  at  Rome. 

a.  According  to  a  tradition  dating  from  the  fourth,  and 
probably  from  the  third  century,  that  found  general  accept- 
ance in  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  the  congregation  at 
Rome  was  founded  by  Peter  in  A.  D.  42  (Jerome  and  Euse- 
bius)  or  in  A.  D.  44  (Acts  12:17).  This  view  is  now 
generally  given  up  and  is  even  rejected  by  some  Catholic 
scholars.  It  finds  no  support  in  Scripture,  but  is  rather  con- 
tradicted by  its  plain  statements.  From  Acts  16 : 9,  10  we 
get  the  impression  that  Paul  was  the  first  missionary  to  pass 
into  Europe  (A.  D.  52),  and  this  is  just  what  we  would 
expect,  since  he,  in  distinction  from  the  other  apostles,  was 
sent  to  the  Gentiles.  Moreover  we  still  find  Peter  in  the 
East,  when  in  A.  D.  50  the  council  of  Jerusalem  is  held, 
which  does  not  agree  with  the  tradition  that  he  was  at  Rome 
25  years.  And  neither  in  this  Epistle,  nor  in  those  written 
from  Rome  do  we  find  the  slightest  trace  of  Peter's  pres- 
ence there ;  yet  Paul  would  certainly  have  mentioned  him, 
had  he  been  the  bishop  of  the  Roman  church.  It  is  also 
impossible  to  reconcile  Paul's  plan  to  visit  Rome  with  the 
principle  he  himself  lays  down  in  15 :  20,  if  the  local  church 
had  been  founded  by  Peter.     And  finally  tradition  tells  us 


148  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

that  Linus  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome,  and  Clement,  the 
second. 

b.  Protestants  often  ascribed  the  origin  of  this  church 
to  the  Roman  Jews  that  were  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of 
Pentecost,  Acts  2 :  10,  and  witnessed  the  extraordinary 
phenomena  that  accompanied  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
On  that  theory  the  church  really  originated  among  the  Jews. 
In  proof  of  this  the  report  which  Suetonius  gives  of  the 
decree  of  expulsion  issued  by  the  emperor  Claudius  against 
the  Jews  of  Rome,  is  adduced  :  "Jiidaeos  impulsore  Chresto 
assidue  tmnultiiantes  Roma  expulit."  It  is  said  that  this 
Chresto  must  be  Christ,  whose  religion  spread  in  the  Jew- 
ish synagogue  and  caused  violent  dissensions  that  were  dan- 
gerous to  the  public  peace ;  but  this  may  well  be,  and  indeed 
is,  questioned  by  many  scholars.  Moreover  it  is  rather 
doubtful,  whether  the  Jews  converted  at  the  time  of  Pente- 
cost were  in  a  position  to  evangelize  others  and  to  establish 
a  Christian  church.  And  finally  this  explanation  does  not 
square  with  the  fact  that  the  church  at  Rome,  as  we  know 
it  from  the  Epistle,  does  not  bear  a  Judaeo-  but  a  Gentile- 
Christian  complexion. 

c.  It  seems  more  likely,  therefore,  that  the  church  at 
Rome  originated  somewhat  later,  and  in  a  different  fashion. 
We  know  that  before  A.  D.  44  the  gospel  had  been  brought 
to  Antioch  in  Syria  and  spread  rapidly  among  the  Gentiles 
of  that  region.  Acts  11  :  20.  Soon  a  flourishing  church  was 
established  in  that  beautiful  city  on  the  Orontes,  a  church 
endowed  with  great  spiritual  gifts,  having  in  its  midst  an 
abundance  of  men  that  were  well  qualified  for  the  work  of 
evangelization,  Acts  13:  1.  Now  there  was  at  that  time  a 
lively  intercommunication  between  Syria  and  Rome,  and 
it  is  certainly  not  improbable  that  some  Gentile  Christians, 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  evangelization,  set  out  from  here  for 
the  capital  of  the  world.  Or  if  not  from  here,  some  such 
persons  may  have  gone  forth  from  the  other  centers  of 
Christianity,  established  by  Paul  on  his  missionary  jour- 
neys.    This  would  explain,  how  the  great  apostle  acquired 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  149 

so  many  acquaintances  at  Rome  as  he  names  in  chapter  16, 
mostly  Gentiles,  some  of  whom  he  calls  his  fellow-laborers 
(cf.  3,  9,  12),  while  he  characterizes  others  with  some  word 
of  endearment  (cf.  5-8,  10,  11,  13).  Some  such  friends 
they  must  have  been  who  went  out  to  meet  Paul  on  the 
Appian  way,  Acts  28:  25,  while  the  Jews  at  Rome  were  evi- 
dently quite  ignorant  as  to  the  teachings  of  Christianity, 
Acts  28:  17-29.  On  this  theory  the  Gentile  character  of  the 
church  at  Rome  causes  no  surprise. 

2.  Its  Composition.  Quite  a  controversy  has  been 
waged  about  the  question,  whether  the  church  at  Rome  was 
predominantly  Jewish-  or  Gentile-Christian.  The  traditional 
idea  was  that  it  consisted  primarily  of  Christians  from  the 
Gentiles ;  but  the  view  that  it  was  composed  mainly  of  Jew- 
ish Christians  gained  currency  through  Baur  and  was  widely 
accepted  for  some  time.  In  support  of  this  theory  scholars 
appealed  :  ( 1 )  To  the  passages  in  the  epistle,  in  which  Paul 
seems  to  include  himself  and  his  readers  in  the  first  person 
plural,  as  3:9  and  5:1.  But  notice  the  same  feature  in 
I.  Cor.  10:1,  though  the  Corinthians  were  certainly  Gen- 
tiles. (2)  To  those  passages  that  speak  of  the  relation  of 
the  readers,  or  of  Paul  and  his  readers  alike  to  the  law,  as 
7:  1-6.  This  argument  is  stronger  than  the  preceding  one; 
yet  we  find  that  the  apostle  employs  similar  language  with 
reference  to  the  Galatians,  Gal.  3:  13 — 4:9,  while  most  of 
these  were  certainly  outside  the  pale  of  Jewry.  (3)  To  the 
character  of  Paul's  argumentation  and  the  dialectical  form 
in  which  he  presents  his  Gospel  to  the  Romans.  But  even 
this  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  he  was  writing  primarily 
to  Jewish  Christians,  since  he  argues  in  similar  fashion  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  because  this  finds  a  ready 
explanation  partly  in  the  Jewish  training  of  the  apostle  and 
partly  in  the  fact  that  Paul  was  fully  conscious  of  the  objec- 
tions which  legalistic  adversaries  were  wont  to  bring  against 
his  doctrine.  Besides,  he  knew  that  there  were  Jewish  con- 
verts in  the  church  at  Rome  too,  who  might  make  similar 
strictures.     (4)  To  the  chapters  9-11,  regarded  by  Baur  as 


150  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

the  kernel  of  the  epistle,  which  relate  particularly  to  the 
Jews.  Yet  in  these  very  chapters  Paul  addresses,  in  the 
most  unambiguous  manner,  the  Gentiles,  and  refers  to  Israel 
as  distinct  from  his  readers,  cf.  9:3,  24;  10:1-3;  11:13, 
17-20,  24,  25,  30,  31. 

When  in  1876  Weizsacker  again  took  up  the  defense  of 
the  older  view,  he  produced  a  decisive  reaction  in  its  favor. 
And,  no  doubt,  it  deserves  the  preference,  for:  (1)  In 
1 :  5,  6  Paul  writes :  "By  whom  we  have  received  grace  and 
apostleship,  for  obedience  to  the  faith  among  the  Gentiles 
(toi?  lOveacv)  for  his  Name;  among  whom  ye  are  also  the 
called  of  Jesus  Christ."  (2)  In  verse  13  he  says  that  he 
had  often  purposed  to  come  to  Rome  "that  I  might  have 
some  fruit  among  you  also,  even  as  among  other  Gentiles." 
(3)  When  the  apostle  says  in  11 :  13 :  "For  I  speak  to  you 
Gentiles,  inasmuch  as  I  am  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  I 
magnify  mine  office,"  it  is  best  to  assume  with  Meyer  and 
Godet  that  he  is  addressing  the  whole  congregation  in  its 
chief  constituent  element.  (4)  According  to  15:  15  ff.  the 
writer  has  spoken  the  more  boldly  to  the  Romans,  because 
of  the  grace  that  was  given  him  "that  he  should  be  the  min- 
ister of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gentiles,  ministering  the  Gospel 
of  God,  that  the  offering  up  of  the  Gentiles  might  be  accept- 
able, being  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  On  the  strength 
of  these  passages  we  conclude  that,  though  there  was  a 
Jewish  constituency  in  the  church  at  Rome,  it  consisted  pri- 
marily of  Gentile  Christians,  so  that  in  ministering  to  it  also 
Paul  was  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  It  seems  almost  cer- 
tain, however,  that  a  legalistic  tendency  had  sprung  up  in 
the  congregation,  but  this  tendency  may  have  been  char- 
acteristically Roman  rather  than  specifically  Judaistic.  For 
further  details  of  this  controversy  cf .  Holtzmann,  Einleitung 
p.  232  ff.;  Sanday-Headlam,  Comm.  p.  XXXI  f f . ;  The 
Expositor's  Greek  Test.  II  p.  561  f  f . ;  and  Zahn,  Einleitung 
I  p.  299  ff.  etc. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  151 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  It  is  impossible  to  speak 
with  absolute  certainly  respecting  the  occasion  of  Paul's 
writing  this  Epistle,  although  scholars  are  quite  well  agreed 
that  the  apostle  found  it  in  the  fact  that  he  had  finished  his 
work  in  the  East  and  now  intended  to  visit  the  imperial  city, 
on  which  he  had  long  since  cast  his  eye.  Probably  an  immi- 
nent journey  of  Phebe  to  the  capital  offered  him,  on  the  eve 
of  his  departure  for  Jerusalem,  the  desired  opportunity  to 
send  his  communication  to  Rome. 

But  if  the  question  is  asked,  why  the  apostle  wrote  this 
letter  to  the  Romans,  why  he  gave  it  the  particular  character 
that  it  has,  we  find  that  there  is  a  great  variety  of  opinions. 
Some  regard  the  Epistle  as  historical  and  occasional ;  others, 
as  dogmatic  and  absolute.  There  are  those  who  hold  that 
the  particular  form  of  the  letter  was  determined  by  the  con- 
dition of  the  readers ;  and  those  that  would  make  it  depend- 
ent on  the  state  of  Paul's  mind.  Some  believe  that  the 
apostle  in  writing  it  had  in  mind  his  Gentile  readers,  while 
others  hold  that  he  had  special  reference  to  the  Jewish  con- 
stituents of  the  church  at  Rome.  The  different  theories 
respecting  the  purpose  of  the  letter  may  be  reduced  to  three. 

a.  According  to  some  the  purpose  of  the  letter  is  dog- 
matic, the  Epistle  containing  a  systematic  exposition  of  the 
doctrine  of  salvation.  But  if  Paul  meant  to  give  in  it  noth- 
ing but  an  objective  statement  of  the  truth,  the  question  may 
be  asked,  why  he  should  send  it  to  Rome,  and  not  to  some 
other  church. 

b.  Others  affirm  that  the  aim  of  the  Epistle  is  contro- 
versial, Paul  giving  an  exposition  of  the  truth  with  special 
reference  to  the  opposition  of  Judaeism  to  his  gospel.  Now 
we  need  not  doubt  that  there  is  a  polemic  element  in  this 
Epistle,  but  the  question  may  well  be  raised,  whether  the 
apostle  did  not  combat  legalism  in  general  rather  than 
Judaeism. 

c.  Still  others  believe  that  the  purpose  of  the  letter  is 
conciliatory,  aiming  at  the  unity  of  Jew  and  Gentile  in  the 


152  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

church  at  Rome.  This  theory  also  contains  an  element  of 
truth,  for  Paul  certainly  was  very  solicitous  about  that 
unity,  when  he  wrote  this  Epistle ;  but  it  is  a  mistake  to 
regard  the  promotion  of  it  as  his  sole  purpose  in  writing. 

It  seems  to  us  that,  with  Holtzmann,  Sanday-Headlam 
and  Denney  (in  Exp.  Gk.  Test.),  we  should  combine  these 
various  elements  in  stating  the  purpose  of  the  Epistle.  Paul 
had  long  cherished  a  desire  to  visit  the  city  on  the  Tiber. 
Through  his  friends  and  associates  he  had  received  some 
intelligence  regarding  the  church  that  had  been  founded 
there.  And  now  that  he  is  about  to  depart  for  Jerusalem, 
he  has  evil  forebodings ;  he  may  never  see  Rome ;  and  yet 
he  deems  it  desirable  that  the  Roman  church,  which  had  not 
been  founded  by  an  apostle,  should  not  only  be  notified  of 
his  intended  visit,  but  receive  a  full  and  clear  statement  of 
his  Gospel.  Hence  he  prepares  for  the  Romans  a  careful 
exposition  of  the  Gospel  truth.  And  knowing,  as  he  did, 
the  legalistic  tendency  of  the  human  heart,  accented,  as  it 
often  was  in  his  time,  by  Judaeism, — a  tendency  that  prob- 
ably found  a  fruitful  soil  among  the  moralistic  Romans,  he 
clearly  exhibits  its  antagonism  to  the  doctrine  of  salvation, 
at  the  same  time  carefully  guarding  and  assiduously  culti- 
vating the  unity  of  the  believers  at  Rome,  of  the  weak  and 
the  strong,  of  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  As  to  the  time,  when  Paul  wrote 
this  Epistle,  we  can  infer  from  1:13  that  he  had  not  yet 
been  in  Rome,  and  from  15 :  25  that  he  was  still  a  free  man. 
Therefore  he  must  have  written  it  before  Pentecost  of  A.  D. 
58,  for  then  he  was  taken  captive  at  Jerusalem.  On  the 
other  hand  it  is  clear  from  15 :  19-21  that  the  apostle  has 
finished  his  task  in  the  East  and  is  now  about  to  transfer  his 
ministry  to  the  West.  Hence  it  follows  that  he  composed 
this  letter  at  the  end  of  his  third  missionary  journey,  i.  e. 
in  the  fall  of  A.  D.  57,  or  in  the  spring  of  A.  D.  58.  This 
also  agrees  with  the  fact  that  the  apostle  in  the  Epistles  to 
the  Corinthians  (I  16:  1-4;  II  8,  9)  is  still  occupied  with  the 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  153 

collection  for  the  saints  at  Jerusalem,  while  this  work  is 
finished,  when  he  writes  to  the  Romans,  15  :  25. 

If  this  date  is  correct,  then  the  Epistle  must  have  been 
written  at  Corinth.  And  there  are  some  data  that  corrobo- 
rate this  conclusion.  The  bearer  of  the  letter  is  a  member 
of  the  church  at  Cenchrea,  one  of  the  ports  of  Corinth, 
16:  1  ;  and  Gajus,  the  host  of  Paul,  is  most  likely  the  person 
mentioned  in  I  Cor.  1  :  14.  Moreover  the  salutations  of 
Timothy  and  Sopater  or  Sosipater  in  16 :  21  is  in  perfect 
agreement  with  what  is  said  in  Acts  20 : 4  regarding  the 
presence  of  these  men  at  Corinth,  when  Paul  started  for 
Jerusalem. 

INTEGRITY. 

Touching  the  integrity  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  two 
questions  have  arisen:  1.  Is  the  doxology,  16:25-27,  in 
the  right  place,  or  does  it  belong  between  14:  23  and  15 :  1, 
or  is  it  spurious?  And  2.  Are  the  chapters  15  and  16 
genuine  or  spurious  ? 

1.  The  place  of  the  doxology  at  the  end  of  chapter  16 
was  doubted  as  early  as  the  days  of  Origen.  External  testi- 
mony favors  it,  since  it  is  found  there  in  most  of  the  MSS, 
while  some  have  it  at  the  end  of  chapter  14,  and  a  few,  in 
both  places.  Zahn  is  of  the  opinion,  however,  that  internal 
evidence  decidedly  favors  placing  it  at  the  end  of  chapter 
14,  because:  (1)  Paul's  letters  are  often  interspersed  with 
doxologies,  but  never  end  with  them.  (2)  It  seems  unlikely 
that  Paul  should  add  a  doxology,  closely  connected  with  the 
body  of  the  letter,  after  a  list  of  personal  greetings  not  so 
connected  with  it.  (3)  The  doxology  is  closely  related  to 
the  subject-matter  of  14:  23  and  15  :  1.  (4)  It  is  far  harder 
to  explain  its  transfer  from  the  16th  chapter  to  the  14th 
than  the  reverse.    Einl.  I  p.  268  fif. 

Some,  as  f.  i.  Davidson  and  Baljon,  doubt  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  doxology,  but:  (1)  It  is  found  in  all  the  MSS. 
(2)  The  thought  expressed  in  it  is  too  rich  and  varied  to  be 


154  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

an  interpolation.  (3)  No  possible  motive  can  be  found  for 
forging  such  a  doxology. 

2.     The  15th  chapter  is  regarded  by  some  as  spurious, 

(1)  because  it  is  not  found  in  the  canon  of  Marcion ;  and 

(2)  since  the  appellative  applied  to  Christ  in  verse  8  is  con- 
sidered very  strange  as  coming  from  Paul ;  the  expression 
in  verse  19  is  not  characterized  by  the  usual  Pauline  mod- 
esty ;  and  the  verses  24,  28,  29  are  held  to  be  in  conflict  with 
1 :  10-15,  because  they  imply  that  Paul  merely  desired  to 
pay  a  short  visit  to  Rome,  when  he  was  on  his  way  to  Spain. 
But  the  first  argument  has  little  weight,  since  Marcion  omits 
many  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  several  that 
are  generally  admitted  to  be  genuine ;  and  the  difficulties 
mentioned  under  (2)  easily  yield  to  exegesis. 

A  far  greater  number  of  scholars  reject  chapter  16,  (1) 
because  Marcion's  canon  does  not  contain  it;  (2)  since  it  is 
contrary  to  the  apostle's  custom  to  end  his  letters  with  so 
many  greetings ;  and  (3)  because  Paul  was  not  in  a  position 
to  know  so  many  persons  at  Rome.  To  the  first  argument 
we  need  not  reply  again  (cf.  above)  ;  and  as  far  as  the  greet- 
ings are  concerned,  it  may  be  that  Paul  intentionally  greeted 
so  many  persons  at  Rome  to  bring  out  clearly  that,  though 
he  had  not  founded  the  church  there,  he  was  not  a  stranger 
to  it,  and  to  cultivate  a  certain  familiarity.  It  deserves  our 
attention  that  the  only  other  Epistle  in  which  we  find  a  list 
of  greetings  is  that  to  the  Colossian  church,  which  was  like 
the  church  of  Rome,  in  that  it  was  not  founded  by  the 
apostle.  And  taking  in  consideration  the  extensive  travels 
of  Paul  in  the  East,  and  the  constant  movement  of  people 
in  all  parts  of  the  empire  to  and  from  Rome,  it  causes  no 
surprise  that  so  many  of  the  apostle's  acquaintances  were  in 
the  capital. 

Some  who  doubt  the  destination  rather  than  the  genuine- 
ness of  this  chapter  surmise  that  it  or  a  part  of  it  originally 
constituted  an  epistle,  or  a  fragment  of  one,  that  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  Ephesians.  They  point  out  that  Phebe  would 
be  more  likely  to  journey  to  Ephesus  tlian  to  Rome ;  that,  in 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  155 

view  of  what  is  said  in  Acts  18:  19;  I  Cor.  16:  19;  II  Tim. 
4:19,  there  is  a  greater  probabiHty  that  Aquila  and  Pris- 
cilla  were  at  Ephesus  than  in  the  imperial  city ;  and  that 
Epenetus  is  called  "the  first-fruits  of  Achaia  unto  Christ, 
16 :  5.  But  none  of  these  proofs  are  conclusive.  Moreover 
Dr.  Gififord  points  out  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary  that  of 
the  twenty-two  persons  named  in  verses  6-15,  not  one  can 
be  shown  to  have  been  at  Ephesus ;  while  ( 1 )  Urbanus, 
Rufus,  Ampliatus,  Julia  and  Junia  are  specifically  Roman 
names ;  and  (2)  besides  the  first  four  of  these  names,  "ten 
others,  Stachys,  Apelles,  Tryphaena,  Tryphosa,  Hermes, 
Hermas,  Patrobas  (or  (Patrobius),  Philologus,  Julia, 
Nereus  are  found  in  the  sepulchral  inscriptions  on  the  Ap- 
pian  way  as  the  names  of  persons  connected  with  'Csesar's 
household'  (Phil.  4:22),  and  contemporary  with  St.  Paul." 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  one  of  the  best  attested 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  Its  canonicity  was  never 
doubted  by  the  Church,  and  it  has  been  remarkably  free 
from  the  attacks  of  Rationalism  up  to  the  present  time. 
Before  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  there  are  nineteen 
witnesses  to  the  canonicity  of  the  letter,  including  some  of 
the  apostolic  fathers,  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patri- 
archs, Justin  Martyr,  the  Muratori  Canon,  Marcion,  Ire- 
naeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Tertullian.  Both  friends 
and  foes  of  Christianity  accepted  it  as  authoritative. 

It  is  the  most  systematic  of  all  the  writings  of  Paul,  con- 
taining a  profound  and  comprehensive  statement  of  the  way 
of  salvation,  a  statement  made  with  special  reference  to  the 
legalistically  inclined  Romans.  That  salvation  can  be  had 
through  faith  only,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law,  not  by 
one's  works  of  morality,  on  which  the  man  of  the  Roman 
type  was  inclined  to  place  his  reliance,  is  at  once  the  great 
central  doctrine  of  this  epistle  and  its  permanent  lesson  for 
all  asfes. 


The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 


CONTENTS. 

The  contents  of  this  Epistle  may  be  divided  into  five 
parts: 

/.  Condemnation  of  the  Factions  in  the  Church,  1 :  1 — 
4:21.  After  a  brief  introduction  in  1  :  1-9  Paul  states  that 
he  had  heard  of  the  divisions  among  the  Corinthians,  1:11- 
12.  In  arguing  against  these  he  points  out  that  his  conduct 
was  free  from  party  spirit,  since  this  is  opposed  by  the 
gospel  and  forbidden  by  the  character  of  Christ,  1  :  13-31. 
Moreover  he  reminds  the  Corinthians  that  his  preaching 
had  been  free  from  all  partisanship  which  glories  in  the 
wisdom  of  man,  because  the  gospel  is  the  message  of  divine 
wisdom,  is  revealed  by  the  Spirit  and  is  understood  only 
through  the  Spirit;  while  party  spirit  misapprehends  the 
nature  of  the  ministry,  2 :  1 — 3  :  23.  He  concludes  this  argu- 
ment by  pointing  to  his  own  example,  4:  1-21. 

//.  The  Necessity  of  Church  Discipline  urged,  5 :  1 — 
6 :  20.  The  Corinthians  are  exhorted  to  cast  out  the  incest- 
uous person,  5:1-13;  to  desist  from  lawsuits  before  the 
unrighteous,  6:  1-11 ;  and  to  flee  from  fornication,  6:  12-20. 

///.  Answer  to  Inquiries  sent  from  the  Church,  7 :  1 — 
14 :  39.  Here  we  find  a  discussion  of  the  lawfulness  of  mar- 
riage and  its  duties ;  directions  about  mixed  marriages  and 
an  apostolic  advice  to  the  unmarried,  7 :  1-40.  Then  follows 
a  discussion  of  Christian  liberty  in  the  participation  of  food 
offered  to  the  idols,  in  which  love  must  rule,  and  one  must 
beware  of  any  participation  in  idolatrous  practices.  The 
apostle  illustrates  this  principle  at  length  by  pointing  to  his 
own  example.  8:  1 — 11 :  1.  Next  the  place  of  woman  in  the 
assemblies  of  the  church,  and  the  proper  observance  of  the 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  157 

Lord's  supper  is  considered,  1 1 :  2-34.  And  finally  the  spir- 
itual gifts  manifest  in  the  congregation  come  in  for  con- 
sideration. Their  source  and  diversity,  their  functions,  the 
superiority  of  love  over  the  extraordinary  gifts,  and  of 
prophecy  over  the  speaking  of  tongues,  and  the  right  service 
of  God, — all  receive  due  treatment,  12  :  1 — 14 :  40. 

IV.  A  Discussion  of  the  Resurrection,  15 :  1-58.  The 
apostle  shows  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  an  essential 
article  of  the  apostolic  testimony,  and  is  the  pledge  of  our 
resurrection;  and  answers  various  objections,  describing 
the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body  and  the  final  victory 
over  death. 

V.  Conclusion,  16:  1-24.  In  this  chapter  the  apostle 
commends  to  the  Corinthians  the  collection  for  the  saints  at 
Jerusalem,  bespeaks  a  good  reception  for  Timothy,  and  ends 
his  epistle  with  friendly  admonitions  and  salutations. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  This  Epistle  is  the  most  comprehensive  of  all  the 
writings  of  Paul.  It  is  just  about  as  long  as  the  letter  to  the 
Romans,  and  contains  the  same  number  of  chapters ;  but, 
while  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  systematically  treats  a  sin- 
gle theme,  this  letter  discusses  a  great  variety  of  subjects, 
such  as  party  spirit,  church  discipline,  marriage  and  celi- 
bacy, Christian  liberty,  the  place  of  woman  in  the  church, 
the  significance  and  use  of  the  charismata,  and  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead.  And  the  apostle  treats  of  these  matters  in 
a  very  orderly  way,  first  taking  up  the  accusations  contained 
in  the  report  of  those  from  the  household  of  Chloe,  and  then 
answering  the  questions  that  were  put  to  him  in  the  letter 
sent  by  the  Corinthians. 

2.  Closely  connected  with  the  first  is  a  second  charac- 
teristic, viz.  that  this  Epistle  is  the  most  practical  of  all  the 
Pauline  letters.  It  reveals  to  us,  as  no  other  New  Testa- 
ment writing  does,  the  snares  and  pitfalls,  the  difficulties 
and  temptations   to  which   a   church   just  emerging   from 


158  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

heathendom  and  situated  in  a  wicked  city,  is  exposed.  Many 
of  the  problems  that  arose  in  the  Corinthian  church  con- 
stantly recur  in  city  congregations.  As  important  as  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  for  instruction  in  Christian  doc- 
trine, the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  for  the  study  of 
social  relations. 

3.  Little  need  be  said  regarding  the  language  of  Paul 
in  this  Epistle ;  it  is  the  Greek  of  a  Hellenistic  Jew.  We 
cannot  call  it  Hebraistic ;  neither  is  it  literary  Greek.  It  is 
rather  the  Greek  of  Paul's  own  period,  containing,  aside 
from  a  few  Hebrew  loanwords,  such  as  iTaa-/a,  very  few 
words  that  are  found  exclusively  in  the  Septuagint.  Find- 
lay  says :  "Paul  has  become  in  this  epistle  more  than  else- 
where TOtq  "EXXY]atv  wg  "EXXy]v."  Exp.  Gk.  Test.  H  p.  748. 
The  argumentative  form  too  in  which  the  apostle's  thought 
is  cast  here,  as  elsewhere,  is  far  more  Greek  than  Hebrew, 
more  Western  than  Oriental. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

This  epistle  also  claims  to  have  been  written  by  Paul, 
1:1,  2,  and  bears  upon  the  face  of  it  the  earmarks  of  the 
great  apostle.  The  language,  the  style,  the  doctrine,  and 
the  spirit  which  it  breathes, — are  all  his ;  and  the  historical 
allusions  in  chapters  9  and  16  fit  in  exactly  with  what  we 
know  of  his  life  and  acquaintances  from  other  sources. 
Besides  this  there  is  an  imposing  body  of  external  evidence 
from  Clement  of  Rome  down  to  the  authenticity  of  the  let- 
ter. Hence  it,  like  that  written  to  the  Romans,  has  been 
remarkably  free  from  hostile  attacks.  Robertson  and  Plum- 
mer  truly  say  in  the  Introduction  to  their  Commentary  on 
this  Epistle  p.  XVI :  "Both  the  external  and  the  internal 
evidence  for  the  Pauline  authorship  are  so  strong  that  those 
who  attempt  to  show  that  the  apostle  was  not  the  writer 
succeed  chiefly  in  proving  their  own  incompetence  as  critics." 

The  free-lance  Bruno  Bauer  was  the  first,  and  for  a  long 
time  the  only  one,  to  attack  the  genuineness  of  I  Corinthians. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  159 

But  in  the  last  two  decennia  of  the  preceding  century  the 
Dutch  critics  Loman,  Pierson,  Naber  and  Van  Manen,  and 
the  Swiss  professor  Steck  chimed  in  with  a  most  irrespon- 
sible kind  of  criticism,  founded  on  supposed  inconsistencies 
and  evidences  of  composite  authorship  found  in  the  Epistle, 
and  on  imaginary  conflicts  between  it  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  No  critic  of  name  takes  their  argument  serious ; 
according  to  the  general  estimate  they  are  scarcely  worth 
the  paper  on  which  they  are  written. 

THE  CHURCH  AT  CORINTH. 

1.  Its  Origin.  After  Paul  left  Athens  on  his  second 
missionary  journey,  he  came  to  the  capital  of  Achaia, — to 
Corinth,  a  city  situated  on  the  isthmus  of  the  Peloponnese 
between  the  Ionian  and  the  Aegean  sea.  It  was  not  the  old 
Corinth,  since  this  had  been  destroyed  by  Mummius  in  146 
B.  C,  but  Corinth  redivivus,  Corinth  rebuilt  by  Ceasar  just 
a  hundred  years  later,  that  had  rapidly  risen  in  fame,  and 
now  had  a  population  of  between  six  and  seven  hundred 
thousand,  consisting  of  Romans,  Greeks,  Jews  and  people 
of  such  other  nationalities  as  were  attracted  by  the  commer- 
cial advantages  of  Corinth.  The  East  and  the  West  met 
there,  and  it  soon  became  the  mart  of  the  world,  where  un- 
paralleled riches  were  found  alongside  of  the  deepest  poverty. 
And  with  the  increase  of  riches  and  luxury  came  a  life  of 
ease  and  licentiousness.  Worldly  wisdom  and  great  moral 
degradation  went  hand  in  hand.  On  the  Acropolis  shone 
the  temple  of  Venus,  where  a  thousand  maidens  devoted 
themselves  to  the  sensual  service  of  the  goddess.  Corinthian 
immorality  became  a  byword;  and  the  expression  to  live 
like  a  Corinthian  (/.optvOia^eiv)  was  indicative  of  the 
greatest  licentiousness.  Farrar  says :  "Corinth  was  the 
Vanity  Fair  of  the  Roman  Empire,  at  once  the  London  and 
the  Paris  of  the  first  century  after  Christ."   St.  Paul  I  p.  556. 

To  that  worldly-wise  profligate  Corinth  Paul  wended  his 
way  with  a  sad  heart  in  A.  D.  52.  Depressed  in  spirit  be- 
cause of  past  experiences,  he  began  his  labors  in  the  syna- 


160 NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

gogue,  preaching  to  the  Jews  ;  but  when  they  opposed  him,  he 
turned  to  the  Gentiles  and  taught  them  in  the  house  of  a 
certain  Justus.  Crispus,  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  became 
one  of  his  first  converts,  and  many  others  believed  and  were 
baptized,  Acts  18:1-8.  Encouraged  by  a  vision,  he  now 
began  a  ministry  of  a  year  and  a  half  in  that  city.  The 
Jews,  filled  with  hatred,  brought  him  before  Gallio,  the  pro- 
consul of  Achaia,  but  did  not  succeed  in  making  out  a  case 
against  him.  Even  after  this  incident  he  labored  a  long 
time  in  Corinth  and  the  adjacent  country  and  undoubtedly 
established  the  Corinthian  church  on  this  occasion,  Acts 
18:18;  I  Cor.  1:1. 

2.  Its  Composition  and  Character.  We  may  be  sure 
that  the  church  consisted  primarily  of  Christians  from  the 
Gentiles.  This  impression  is  conveyed  by  the  account  of 
Paul's  work  in  Corinth,  preserved  for  us  in  Acts  18,  and  is 
strengthened  by  a  careful  study  of  the  epistle.  The  apostle 
says  of  the  congregation,  describing  it  according  to  its  main 
constituent  element :  "Ye  know  that  ye  were  Gentiles,  car- 
ried away  unto  these  dumb  idols,  even  as  ye  were  led,"  12 :  1. 
Yet  the  church  also  comprised  many  Jews,  as  we  may  infer 
from  Acts  18 :  8  ;  I  Cor.  1 :  12  ;  7 :  18 ;  12 :  13.  The  majority 
of  the  converts  were  of  the  poorer  classes,  1  :  26 ;  but  there 
were  also  Crispus,  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue.  Acts  18:8; 
I  Cor.  1  :  14,  Erastus,  the  chamberlain  of  the  city  and  Gajus, 
Paul's  host,  Rom.  16:23,  and  several  others  that  were  in 
more  favorable  circumstances,  as  we  may  infer  from  I  Cor. 
11:21,22. 

As  far  as  the  complexion  of  the  church  is  concerned  we 
find  that  it  bore  the  impress  of  its  surroundings.  There  was 
a  shallow  intellectualism,  coupled  with  a  factiousness  that 
was  "the  inveterate  curse  of  Greece."  Lax  morals  and  un- 
seemly conduct  disgraced  its  life.  Christian  liberty  was 
abused  and  idolatrous  practices  were  tolerated.  Even  the 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  rise  to  vainglory ;  and  a  false 
spiritualism  led,  on  the  one  hand,  to  a  disregard  of  bodily 
sin,  and,  on  the  other,  to  a  denial  of  the  bodily  resurrection. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  161 

But  these  faults  should  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  there 
was  a  great  deal  in  the  church  of  Corinth  that  was  praise- 
worthy. The  social  relations  among  the  Corinthians  had 
already  undergone  to  a  certain  degree  the  elevating  and 
sanctifying  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  church  was  rich 
in  spiritual  gifts,  and  was  willing  to  impart  of  its  substance 
to  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem. 

The  divisions  at  Corinth  deserve  more  than  a  passing 
notice,  since  they  are  made  so  prominent  in  the  Epistle.  The 
question  is,  whether  we  can  determine  the  character  of  the 
existing  parties.  In  attempting  this  we  desire  to  point  out 
first  of  all  that  they  were  no  parties  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
word,  each  with  an  organization  of  its  own,  but  merely  dis- 
sensions in  the  church,  representing  a  difference  of  opinion. 
They  had  not  led  to  an  absolute  split  in  the  ranks  of  believ- 
ers, for  Paul  distinctly  recognizes  a  certain  feeling  of  unity 
in  the  church  of  Corinth,  since  he  mentions  meetings  of  the 
whole  church  repeatedly,  11:18;  14:23.  Yet  there  were 
four  divisions  of  which  each  one  had  his  own  slogan. 

a.  Some  said :  "I  am  of  Paul !"  This  party  is  men- 
tioned first,  not  necessarily  because  it  comes  first  in  chron- 
ological order.  Since  the  church  had  been  founded  by  Paul, 
it  would  seem  that  a  separate  party,  using  the  apostle's 
name  as  their  shibboleth,  could  only  arise  in  opposition  to 
another.  It  consisted  most  likely  of  those  serious-minded 
believers  who  had  regard  to  the  contents  of  the  gospel 
preaching  rather  than  to  its  form  ;  and  who  heartily  accepted 
the  simple  doctrine  of  the  cross,  as  Paul  preached  it,  who 
had  come  to  them  without  wisdom  of  words  that  the  cross 
of  Christ  might  not  be  made  of  non-effect. 

b.  Others  said :  "I  am  of  Apollos !"  We  do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  preaching  of  Apollos  differed  essentially  from 
that  of  Paul,  nor  that  he  was  to  blame  for  the  dissension 
that  arose  as  a  result  of  his  work.  Paul  himself  bears  wit- 
ness to  his  perfect  unity  of  spirit  with  Apollos,  where  he 
says  that  Apollos  watered  what  he  had  planted,  and  that  he 
that  planteth  and  he  that  watereth  are  one,  3 : 6-8 ;  and  that 


162  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

he  had  greatly  desired  to  send  ApoUos  with  Timothy  and 
the  other  brethren  to  Corinth,  15 :  12.  And  is  it  not  likely 
that  Apollos  refused  to  go,  just  because  he  feared  that  it 
might  foster  the  party  spirit?  The  Apollos  Christians  were 
in  all  probability  those  cultured  Greeks  who,  while  they 
were  in  accord  with  the  doctrine  of  free  grace,  greatly  pre- 
ferred a  speculative  and  oratorical  presentation  of  it  to  the 
simple  preaching  of  Paul. 

c.  Still  others  said  :  "I  am  of  Cephas  !"  While  the  two 
former  parties  undoubtedly  constituted  the  bulk  of  the  con- 
gregation, there  were  also  some  who  had  scruples  regarding 
the  doctrine  of  free  grace.  They  were  conservative  Jewish 
believers  that  adhered  to  the  decisions  of  the  council  of 
Jerusalem  and  persisted  in  certain  legal  observances.  Nat- 
urally they  in  spirit  rallied  around  Peter,  the  apostle  of 
circumcision.  It  may  be  that  the  tradition  preserved  by 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  is  true  that  Peter  has  at  one  time  vis- 
ited Corinth.    If  it  is,  this  helps  to  explain  their  watchword. 

d.  Finally  there  were  also  those  who  said :  "I  am  of 
Christ!"  This  party  has  always  been  the  most  difficult  to 
characterize,  and,  as  a  result,  a  great  number  of  theories 
have  been  broached.  After  F.  C.  Baur  many  interpreted 
this  "of  Christ"  in  the  light  of  II  Cor.  10:7,  where  the 
opponents  of  whom  Paul  speaks  are  ultra-Judaeists.  On 
that  theory  the  Christ-party  would  be  even  more  strictly 
Jewish  than  the  party  of  Peter.  Others,  such  as  Hilgenfeld 
and  Hausrath  maintain  that  it  consisted  of  those  that  had 
been  in  personal  relation  with  the  Lord,  and  probably  be- 
longed to  the  five  hundred  of  I  Cor.  15:5.  Godet  suggests 
that  they  were  such  as  were  embued  with  the  spirit  of 
Cerinthus,  and  believed  in  Christ  in  distinction  from  the 
human  Jesus.  He  identifies  them  with  those  who  would  call 
Jesus  accursed,  I  Cor.  12  :3.  We  prefer  to  think  with  Meyer, 
Ellicott,  Alford,  Findley  (Exp.  Gk.  Test.)  and  Biesterveld 
that  it  consisted  of  the  ultra-pious  ones  who.  despising  all 
human  leadership,  arrogated  the  common  watchword  as  their 
own  private  property,  and  by  so  doing  made  it  a  party  slogan. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  163 

They  regarded  themselves  as  the  ideal  party,  were  filled 
with  spiritual  pride,  and  thus  became  a  great  stumblingblock 
for  the  apostle.  The  key  to  this  interpretation  is  found  in 
3 :  22,  23,  where  the  apostle  offers  a  corrective  for  the  party 
spirit,  when  he  says :  "Whether  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or 
Cephas,  or  the  world,  or  life,  or  death,  or  things  present, 
or  things  to  come ;  all  are  yours ;  and  ye  are  Christ's  and 
Christ  is  God's."  Findlay  correctly  remarks  that  "the 
catholic  upiet?  Xptaxou  swallows  up  the  self-assertive  and 
sectarian  Eyw  Se  XptaxoO. 

3.  Paul's  Communications  with  it.  There  are  two  ques- 
tions that  call  for  consideration  under  this  heading :  a.  How 
often  did  Paul  visit  Corinth?  and  b.  Did  he  write  more 
letters  to  the  Corinthian  church  than  we  now  possess? 

a.  We  know  that  Paul  visited  Corinth  in  A.  D.  52,  Acts 
18:  1,  and  again  in  57,  Acts  20:  2.  Are  there  traces  of  any 
other  visits?  The  allusions  in  II  Cor.  2:1;  12:  14;  13:  1 
seem  to  imply  that  he  had  been  in  Corinth  twice  before  he 
wrote  II  Corinthians,  and  hence  prior  to  the  visit  of  A.  D. 
57.  In  all  probability  we  must  assume  a  visit  not  recorded 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  question  is,  however, 
whether  we  must  place  it  before  the  writing  of  I  Corinth- 
ians, or  between  this  and  the  composition  of  II  Corinthians. 
This  cannot  be  decided  absolutely  with  the  data  at  hand,  but 
we  consider  it  preferable  to  place  it  before  the  first  Epistle : 
(1)  because  the  time  intervening  between  the  two  letters  is 
so  short  that  a  trip  to  Corinth  in  that  time  is  exceedingly 
improbable;  (2)  Since,  Timothy  and  Titus  having  been  in 
Corinth  a  part  of  that  time,  we  cannot  understand,  what 
could  make  it  imperative  for  Paul  to  make  such  a  hasty 
visit;  and  (3)  II  Corinthians  constantly  refers  to  things 
written  in  the  first  Epistle  in  a  way  that  would  not  have 
been  necessary  if  Paul  had  already  been  in  Corinth  himself. 
In  favor  of  placing  it  after  the  writing  of  the  first  Epistle, 
it  is  urged  that  I  Corinthians  does  not  refer  to  a  visit  that 
shortly  preceded  it. 


164  NEW  TESTAMExNT  INTRODUCTION 

b.  It  seems  to  us  that  Paul  unquestionably  wrote  more 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians  than  those  which  we  now  possess. 
In  I  Cor.  5 : 9  the  author  clearly  refers  to  an  earher  letter, 
forbidding  intercourse  with  immoral  persons.  That  letter 
had  been  misunderstood,  and  therefore  the  impression  it 
made  is  now  corrected  by  the  apostle.  Very  likely  it  also 
spoke  of  the  collection  for  the  saints  at  Jerusalem,  16:  1, 
and  conveyed  the  apostle's  intention  to  visit  Corinth  both 
before  and  after  his  visit  to  Macedonia,  to  which  II  Cor. 
1:15,  16  refers,  and  which  he  changed  before  writing  I 
Corinthians  (cf.  16:5),  thereby  unwittingly  exposing  him- 
self to  the  calumny  of  his  enemies,  II  Cor.  1 :  15-18.  From 
II  Cor.  7 : 6-^8  some  infer  that  another  letter,  far  more  cen- 
sorious than  I  Corinthians  intervened  between  the  two 
canonical  letters,  and  caused  the  apostle's  uneasiness ;  but 
the  evidence  is  not  strong  enough  to  warrant  the  conclusion. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  This  letter  was  occasioned 
by  reports  which  Paul  received  from  Corinth  and  by  a  series 
of  questions  that  were  put  to  him  by  the  Corinthians.  Those 
who  were  of  the  house  of  Chloe  told  him  of  the  divisions  in 
their  home  church,  1:11,  and  common  report  had  it  that 
fornication  and  even  incest  was  permitted  in  the  congrega- 
tion, 5:1.  Moreover  the  church  sent  a  letter,  probably  by 
the  hand  of  Stephanas,  Fortunatus  and  Achaicus,  16:17, 
asking  the  apostle's  opinion  in  several  matters,  as  marriage, 
7:1;  the  eating  of  meat  ofifered  to  the  idols,  8:1;  the  proper 
conduct  in  the  church,  11 : 2;  the  right  use  of  the  spiritual 
gifts,  12:1;  and  in  all  probability  also  respecting  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection,  15. 

In  harmony  with  this  occasion  the  purpose  of  the  Epistle 
is  especially  twofold :  In  the  first  place  the  apostle  desires 
to  quench  the  party  spirit  that  was  rife  among  the  Corinth- 
ians that  he  might  lead  them  all  to  the  unity  of  faith  that  is 
in  Jesus  Christ ;  and  to  correct  the  other  evils  that  were 
found  in  the  church,  such  as  the  case  of  incest  and  the  irreg- 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  165 

ularities  that  disgraced  their  Agapae,  which  culminated  in 
the  Lord's  Supper.  And  in  the  second  place  it  was  his  aim 
to  give  the  young  church,  struggling  with  temptations  and 
baffled  by  many  difficult  questions,  further  instruction  along 
the  lines  indicated  by  them  in  their  letter.  With  great  dili- 
gence and  care  and  solicitude  for  the  welfare  of  the  congre- 
gation the  apostle  applies  himself  to  this  task.  In  answer  to 
the  question,  whether  he  also  intended  to  defend  his  apostle- 
ship  over  against  his  enemies  we  would  say  that,  though  this 
was  not  altogether  absent  from  his  mind  (cf.  chs.  4  and  9), 
he  does  not  aim  at  this  directly  like  he  does  in  writing  II 
Corinthians,  when  the  hostility  of  the  false  teachers  has 
become  far  more  pronounced. 

2,  Time  and  Place.  The  place,  where  this  Epistle  was 
written,  is  clearly  indicated  in  16 : 8,  and  therefore  does  not 
call  for  further  discussion.  This  also  aids  us  in  determining 
the  time  of  writing.  The  only  stay  of  Paul  at  Ephesus  of 
any  duration  is  described  in  Acts  19.  If  our  chronological 
calculations  are  correct,  he  came  there  in  A.  D.  54  and,  after 
a  stay  of  three  years,  left  there  again  in  57.  According  to 
I  Cor.  16:8  he  wrote  the  epistle  toward  the  end  of  his 
Ephesian  ministry,  before  Pentecost  of  A.  D.  57,  and  there- 
fore probably  in  the  early  part  of  that  year.  We  cannot 
conclude  from  I  Cor.  5 :  7  that  it  was  when  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread  was  celebrated,  although  it  is  very  well 
possible  that  the  nearness  of  that  feast  gave  rise  to  the  line 
of  thought  developed  in  that  chapter. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  canonicity  of  the  Epistle  is  abundantly  attested  by 
early  Christian  literature.  It  is  the  first  one  of  the  New 
Testament  writings  that  is  cited  by  name  by  one  of  the 
apostolic  fathers.  Clement  of  Rome  says  in  his  first  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians :  "Take  the  Epistle  of  the  blessed  Paul 
the  apostle  into  your  hands  etc."  The  writings  of  the  other 
apostolic  fathers,  viz.  Barnabas,  Hermas,  Ignatius  and  Poly- 
carp  show  clear  traces  of  the  use  of  this  Epistle.     From 


166  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Irenaeus  on  it  is  quoted  as  Holy  Scripture.  The  Gnostics 
regarded  it  with  special  favor.  It  was  found  in  Marcion's 
canon,  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment  etc.  The  testimony  to 
it  is  very  full  and  clear. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  we  have  a  statement  of  the 
way  of  salvation  with  special  reference  to  the  legalistic 
Romans ;  in  this  Epistle  we  find  an  exposition  of  it  par- 
ticularly with  a  view  to  the  philosophically  inclined  Greeks. 
It  clearly  reveals  that  the  way  of  wordly ., wisdom  is  not  the 
way  of  life,  a  valuable  lesson  for  the  (Church  of  all  ages. 
But  there  is  still  another  phase  that  gives  the  Epistle  per- 
manent value ;  it  contains  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  in  its 
social  application.  In  it  we  see  the  church  of  God  in  the 
world  with  all  its  glitter  and  show,  its  temptations  and  dan- 
gers, its  errors  and  crimes,  and  are  taught  to  apply  the 
principles  of  the  Christian  religion  to  the  diversified  rela- 
tions of  life,  as  we  meet  them  in  the  bustle  of  a  great  and 
wicked  city. 


The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

CONTENTS. 

The  contents  of  this  Epistle  are  naturally  divided  into 
three  parts : 

/.  Review  of  Paul's  Relations  with  the  Corinthians, 
1 :  1 — 7:  16.  After  the  usual  epistolary  introduction,  1 :  1-11, 
the  apostle  vindicates  himself  with  respect  to  the  change  in 
his  intended  visit,  and  with  reference  to  what  he  had  writ- 
ten respecting  the  offender,  1 :  12 — 2:  13.  Having  done  this, 
he  takes  up  the  discussion  of  the  apostleship.  In  the  first 
place  he  considers  the  office  of  an  apostle,  comparing  the 
ministry  of  the  Law  with  that  of  the  Gospel,  3 : 6-18,  and 
vindicating  his  own  position  as  an  apostle  of  the  New  Coven- 
ant, 2:  lA — 3:  5;  4:  1-6.  Then  he  treats  of  the  sufferings 
of  an  apostle  which  are  inseparably  connected  with  his  work, 
but  are  alleviated  by  the  hope  of  future  glory,  4 :  7 — 5  :  10. 
Next  the  life  of  an  apostle  passes  the  review,  which  finds  its 
constraining  motive  in  the  love  of  Christ,  has  its  spiritual 
basis  in  the  life  of  the  Redeemer,  and  is  marked  by  suffer- 
ings, dishonor  and  poverty,  on  the  one  hand ;  but  also  by 
longsuffering  and  kindness,  by  knowledge  and  righteousness, 
on  the  other,  5  :  1 1 — 6 :  10.  This  is  followed  up  by  an  appeal 
of  the  apostle  to  the  Corinthians  that  they  should  give  him 
place  in  their  hearts,  and  should  not  be  unequally  yoked  to- 
gether with  unbelievers,  6 :  1 1 — 7 :  4.  Finally  the  apostle 
tells  the  Corinthians  that  he  had  been  comforted  greatly  by 
the  coming  of  Titus,  by  whom  his  fears  that  the  former  let- 
ter might  have  estranged  them,  were  allayed  and  made  place 
for  rejoicing,  7:  5-16. 

//.     The  Collection  for  the  Judaean  Christians,  8 :  1 — 


168  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

9:  15.  The  apostle  points  the  Corinthians  to  the  example  of 
the  Macedonians  who  gave  abundantly  for  the  poor  at  Jeru- 
salem, 8:1-7;  and  to  the  example  of  Christ  who  became 
poor  that  the  Corinthians  might  be  enriched,  8:8-15.  He 
commends  to  them  Titus  and  the  two  brethren  that  are  sent 
with  him  to  gather  the  collection,  8 :  16-24  ;  and  exhorts  them 
to  give  abundantly  for  this  worthy  cause,  9:  1-15. 

///.  Paul's  Vindication  of  his  Apostleship,  10 :  1 — 13  :  14. 
In  this  part  Paul  deals  directly  with  his  opponents.  First 
of  all  he  points  out  that  the  ministry  entrusted  to  him  also 
extended  to  the  Corinthians,  9:1-18.  Then  he  rephes  to 
his  opponents  that  he  had  been  perfectly  loyal  to  the  cause 
of  Christ,  11 :  1-6;  that  he  had  not  dealt  deceitfully  with  the 
Corinthians,  when  he  refused  support  from  them,  11 :  7-15 ; 
that  he  had  far  greater  things  in  which  to  glory  than  they 
could  boast  of,  11 :  16 — 12:  10;  and  that  it  had  never  been 
and  was  not  now  his  aim  to  make  a  gain  of  the  Corinthians, 
12:  11-18.  Finally  he  gives  them  warnings  in  view  of  his 
coming  visit,  and  closes  his  epistle  with  final  salutations 
and  benediction,  12:  19 — 13:  13. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  n  Corinthians  is  one  of  the  most  personal  and  the 
least  doctrinal  of  all  the  letters  of  Paul,  except  the  one  writ- 
ten to  Philemon.  The  doctrinal  element  is  not  altogether 
wanting ;  the  great  truths  of  salvation  find  expression  in  it, 
as  well  as  in  the  other  letters  of  the  apostle ;  but,  though  they 
enter  into  its  composition,  they  have  a  subordinate  place  and 
are,  as  it  were,  eclipsed  by  its  large  personal  element,  in 
which  we  see  the  very  heart  of  the  apostle,  with  all  its  vary- 
ing moods  of  courage  and  anxiety,  of  love  and  aversion,  of 
hope  and  disappointment.  Alford  says :  "Consolation  and 
rebuke,  gentleness  and  severity,  earnestness  and  irony  suc- 
ceed one  another  at  very  short  intervals  and  without  notice." 

2.  The  second  characteristic  of  this  Epistle  is  closely 
connected  with  the  preceding  one ;  it  is  the  most  unsystema- 
tic of  all  the  letters  of  Paul.    How  greatly  it  differs  in  this 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  169 

respect  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  from  First 
Corinthians,  becomes  perfectly  evident,  when  one  attempts 
to  give  an  outline  of  the  contents.  This  irregularity  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  in  this  letter  we  do  not  find  a  calm  discussion 
of  doctrinal  subjects  or  of  certain  phases  of  Christian  life, 
but  above  all  an  impassioned  self-defense  against  unjust 
charges  and  calumnies  and  insinuations.  However  humble 
the  apostle  may  be,  and  though  he  may  regard  himself  as  the 
least  of  all  the  saints,  yet  in  this  letter  he  finds  himself  con- 
strained to  boast  of  his  sufferings  and  of  his  work. 

3.  The  language  of  this  Epistle  has  been  judged  vari- 
ously, some  criticizing  it  severely  and  others  praising  its 
excellencies.  We  cannot  deny  that  it  is  more  rugged  and 
harsh,  more  obscure  and  difficult  of  interpretation  than  we 
are  accustomed  to  in  Paul's  other  writings.  "Parentheses 
and  digressions  often  intersect  the  narrative  and  disturb  its 
sequence."  (Davidson)  Meyer  says  beautifully  :  "The  ex- 
citement and  varied  play  of  emotion  with  which  Paul  wrote 
this  letter,  probably  also  in  haste,  certainly  make  the  expres- 
sion not  seldom  obscure  and  the  sentences  less  flexible,  but 
only  heighten  our  admiration  of  the  great  delicacy,  skill  and 
power  with  which  this  outpouring  of  Paul's  spirit  and  heart, 
possessing  as  a  defense  of  himself  a  high  and  peculiar  inter- 
est, flows  and  gushes  on,  till  finally,  in  the  last  part,  wave  on 
wave  overwhelms  the  hostile  resistance."    Comm.  p.  412. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  external  testimony  to  the  authorship  of  Paul  is  in- 
ferior to  that  of  I  Corinthians ;  yet  it  is  so  strong  that  it 
leaves  no  room  for  honest  doubt.  Irenaeus,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  TertuUian  and  many  others,  from  all  parts  of 
the  early  Church,  quote  it  by  name. 

But  even  if  this  were  not  so  strong,  internal  evidence 
would  be  quite  sufficient  to  settle  the  question  of  authenti- 
city. In  the  first  place  the  Epistle  claims  to  be  a  product 
of  the  great  apostle.  In  the  second  place  it  is  written  in  a 
style  that  is  in  many  respects  characteristically  Pauline,  not- 


170  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

withstanding  its  unique  features ;  it  contains  the  doctrine  of 
salvation,  as  we  are  wont  to  hear  it  proclaimed  by  the  apostle 
of  the  Gentiles ;  and  it  reveals  his  character,  as  no  other 
Epistle  does.  And  in  the  third  place  the  thought  of  this 
Epistle  is  closely  interwoven  with  that  of  I  Corinthians.  In 
I  Cor.  16 :  5  Paul  speaks  of  his  plan  of  travel,  and  in  II  Cor. 
1 :  15-24  he  comments  on  it;  in  I  Cor.  5  he  urges  that  dis- 
cipline be  applied  to  the  incestuous  person,  and  in  II  Cor. 
2:  5-11  he  says,  with  reference  to  this  case,  that  they  have 
inflicted  sufficient  punishment,  and  restrains  their  evident 
severity ;  respecting  the  collection  for  the  Judsean  Christians 
which  he  enjoins  on  the  Corinthians  in  I  Cor.  16:  1-4,  he 
gives  further  directions  in  II  Cor.  8  and  9;  to  the  Judaeizers 
who  cast  doubt  on  his  apostleship  he  refers  in  I  Cor.  4  and  9, 
and  speaks  of  them  more  at  length  in  II  Cor.  10-13. 

The  authenticity  of  the  Epistle  too  was  attacked  by 
Bruno  Bauer  and  by  the  Dutch  critics  that  we  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  first  Epistle.  But  their  work  failed  to 
convince  anyone  but  themselves.  Godet  truly  says :  " — the 
scholars  who  cannot  discern,  across  these  pages,  the  living 
personality  of  St.  Paul,  must  have  lost  in  the  work  of  the 
study,  the  sense  for  realities."    Introd.  to  the  N.  T.  I  p.  337. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  In  order  to  understand  the 
occasion  that  induced  Paul  to  write  this  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, we  must  bring  it  in  connection  with  the  first  letter, 
which  was  in  all  probability  borne  to  Corinth  by  Titus, 
Paul's  spiritual  son.  After  it  had  gone  forth,  the  apostle 
pondered  on  what  he  had  written  in  that  letter,  and  it  caused 
him  some  uneasiness  of  mind,  II  Cor.  7 : 8.  He  reflected 
that  he  had  written  in  a  rather  severe  strain  regarding  the 
divisions  at  Corinth  and  the  incestuous  person,  and  feared 
for  a  time  that  his  words  might  be  misconstrued,  that  his 
letter  might  create  a  false  impression,  and  that  his  severity 
might  provoke  resentment  and  thus  injure  the  cause  of  the 
gospel  that  lay  so  near  to  his  heart. 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  171 

We  are  aware  that  some  scholars,  as  f.  i.  Hausrath, 
Schmiedel,  Kennedy,  Baljon,  Findlay,  Robertson  (in  Hast- 
ings D.  B.)  and  Davidson  hold  that  II  Cor.  2:4,  9;  7:8 
refer  to  a  second  lost  epistle  of  Paul,  the  so-called  Painful 
Letter;  but  with  Zahn,  Holtzmann  and  Bernard  (in  Exposi- 
tor's Gk.  Test.)  we  believe  it  to  be  a  rather  gratuitous  as- 
sumption that  such  an  epistle  ever  existed. 

Shortly  after  Paul  had  sent  I  Corinthians,  he  left  Ephe- 
sus  for  Troas,  where  a  splendid  opportunity  for  work 
oflfered.  Yet  he  was  keenly  disappointed,  for  he  had  ex- 
pected to  find  Titus  there  with  tidings  from  Corinth ;  and 
when  he  did  not  find  him,  his  very  anxiety  caused  him  to 
sail  for  Macedonia  that  he  might  meet  his  beloved  brother 
and  co-laborer  the  sooner  and  be  reassured  by  him,  II  Cor. 
2:  12,  13.  The  mere  change  of  the  field  of  labor  brought 
him  no  relief,  for  he  says :  "When  we  were  come  into 
Macedonia,  our  flesh  had  no  rest,  but  we  were  troubled  on 
every  side  ;  without  were  fightings,  within  were  fears."  7 :  5. 
Soon,  however,  he  was  comforted  by  the  coming  of  Titus, 
7:6;  the  painful  uncertainty  now  made  place  for  calm 
assurance,  yea  even  for  joy  and  thanksgiving.  But  his  hap- 
piness was  not  unalloyed,  since  the  report  of  Titus  was  not 
altogether  favorable.  The  Corinthian  congregation  as  a 
whole  had  taken  kindly  to  the  warnings  and  directions  of  the 
previous  letter.  The  words  of  reproof  had  made  a  deep  im- 
pression on  them,  had  saddened  their  hearts,  had  filled  them 
with  sorrow, — ^but  it  was  a  godly  sorrow  that  worked  re- 
pentance. Hence  the  apostle  had  occasion  to  rejoice  and  did 
rejoice,  7:7-16.  The  enemies  of  Paul,  however,  had  been 
embittered  by  the  former  Epistle  and  had  increased  their 
sinister  work,  attempting  to  undermine  the  apostolic  author- 
ity of  Paul  by  charging  that  he  was  fickle  and  vacillating, 
1:  15-24;  that  he  was  controlled  by  fleshly  motives,  10:2; 
that  he  was  bold  at  a  distance,  but  cowardly,  when  present, 
10 :  10 ;  that  he  was  dealing  deceitfully  with  the  Corinthians 
even  in  taking  no  support  from  them,  11 :  7-12;  and  that  he 
had  not  shown  himself  an  apostle  by  his  works,  12 :  11-13. 


172  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

The  question  may  be  asked  to  which  one  of  the  four 
parties  mentioned  in  I  Corinthians  the  enemies  belong  with 
which  the  apostle  deals  in  II  Cor.  10-13.  It  is  quite  clear, 
and  scholars  are  generally  agreed,  that  they  were  in  the 
main,  if  not  exclusively,  ultra-Judaeists.  But  there  is  no 
such  unanimity  in  classifying  them  with  one  of  the  divisions 
of  which  the  first  Epistle  speaks.  Following  F.  C.  Baur 
many,  such  as  Baljon,  Davidson,  Weiss,  identify  them  with 
those  whose  watchword  was :  "I  am  of  Christ !"  Others, 
however,  as  Meyer  and  Zahn  regard  them  as  belonging  to 
the  party  that  professed  special  allegiance  to  Peter.  To  this 
view  we  give  preference ;  however,  with  the  proviso's  that 
in  this  letter  Paul  does  not  deal  with  the  whole  party,  but 
rather  with  its  leaders,  who  had  probably  come  from  Judaea 
with  letters  of  commendation,  3:1,  and  whom  Paul  qualifies 
as  "false  apostles,  deceitful  workers,  transforming  them- 
selves in  apostles  of  Christ,"  11:  13; — and  that  it  is  quite 
possible  that  some  of  his  words  refer  to  those  who,  ignor- 
ing and  dispising  all  human  authority,  claimed  to  be  of 
Christ,  and  did  not  uphold  the  honor  and  faithfulness  of  the 
apostle  against  the  false  teachers.    Cf .  10 :  7. 

This  being  the  situation  at  Corinth,  when  the  apostle 
wrote  his  second  letter,  he  was  naturally  led  to  write  with  a 
twofold  purpose.  In  the  first  place  it  was  his  desire  to  ex- 
press his  gratitude  for  the  way  in  which  the  Corinthians 
had  received  his  former  letter,  and  to  inform  them  of  the 
joy  he  experienced,  when  they  had  manifested  their  willing- 
ness to  mend  their  ways  and  had  been  filled  with  godly 
sorrow.  And  in  the  second  place  he  considered  it  incumbent 
on  him  to  defend  his  apostleship  against  the  calumnies  and 
the  malignant  attacks  of  the  Judaeistic  adversaries. 

2,  Time  and  Place.  In  view  of  the  account  we  have 
given  of  the  course  of  events  that  followed  the  writing  of 
I  Corinthians,  it  is  not  very  difficult  to  establbish  approxi- 
mately both  the  time  and  the  place  of  writing.  We  may 
assume  that,  in  accordance  with  the  plan  expressed  in  I  Cor. 
15:8,  the  apostle  remained  at  Ephesus  until  Pentecost  of 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  173 

A.  D.  57.  On  leaving  Ephesus  he  went  to  Troas,  from 
where  he  crossed  over  to  Macedonia.  There  he  soon  met 
Titus,  presumably  in  the  summer  of  that  same  year,  and 
therefore  some  time  before  he  was  ready  to  visit  Corinth, 
and  received  information  from  him  regarding  the  condition 
of  the  Corinthian  church.  Overjoyed  by  what  he  heard,  but 
at  the  same  time  apprehending  the  danger  that  lurked  in  the 
agitation  of  the  Judaeizers,  he  immediately  wrote  II  Corin- 
thians, and  sent  it  to  Corinth  by  the  hand  of  Titus,  who  was 
accompanied  on  his  journey  by  two  of  the  brethren,  whose 
names  are  not  recorded,  8 :  18,  22.  The  letter  was  written, 
therefore,  in  the  summer  of  A.  D.  57,  somewhere  in  Mace- 
donia. 

INTEGRITY. 

The  integrity  of  the  letter  has  been  attacked  especially 
on  two  points.  It  is  claimed  by  some  that  the  verses  6 :  lA — 
7 :  1  do  not  belong,  where  they  stand,  but  form  an  awkward 
interruption  in  the  course  of  thought.  A  few  scholars  re- 
gard them  as  a  part  of  the  lost  letter  to  which  I  Cor.  5 : 9 
refers.  Now  it  is  true  that  at  first  sight  these  verses  seem 
out  of  place,  where  they  stand,  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  very 
well  possible  to  give  a  plausible  explanation  for  their  in- 
sertion at  this  point.  Cf.  Meyer,  Alford,  Expositor's  Greek; 
Testament. 

Several  critics  opine  that  the  chapters  10-13  did  not  ori- 
ginally form  a  part  of  this  letter.  Hausrath  and  Schmiedel 
advocated  the  theory  that  they  constituted  a  part  of  the  so- 
called  Painful  letter  that  intervened  between  I  and  II  Corin- 
thians. The  reasons  why  they  would  separate  this  section 
from  the  other  nine  chapters,  are  the  following :  ( 1 )  The 
10th  chapter  begins  with  the  words  Au-o?  Se  evo)  IlauXog, 
which  Se  marks  these  words  as  an  antithesis  to  something 
that  is  not  found  in  the  preceding.  (2)  The  tone  of  the 
apostle  in  these  last  chapters  is  strikingly  different  from  that 
in  the  other  nine  ;  from  a  calm  and  joyful  tone  it  has  changed 


174  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

to  one  of  stern  rebuke  and  of  sharp  invective.  (3)  Certain 
passages  found  in  the  first  part  point  back  to  statements 
that  are  found  in  the  last  chapters,  and  thus  prove  that  these 
are  part  of  a  previous  letter.  Thus  2:  3  refers  to  13:  10; 
1:23  to  13:2;  and  2:9  to  10:6. 

But  to  these  arguments  we  may  reply,  in  the  first  place, 
that  Se  often  does  no  more  than  mark  the  transition  to  a 
new  subject  (cf.  I  Cor.  15:  1 ;  II  Cor.  8:  1)  ;  in  the  second 
place,  that  the  change  of  tone  need  not  surprise  us,  if  we 
take  in  consideration  the  possibility  that  Paul  did  not  write 
the  whole  Epistle  at  a  single  sitting  and  therefore  in  the 
same  mood ;  and  the  fact  that  in  the  last  chapters  he  deals 
more  particularly  with  the  false  teachers  among  the  Corin- 
thians ;  and  in  the  third  place,  that  the  passages  referred  to 
do  not  necessitate  the  construction  put  on  them  by  the  above 
named  critics.  Moreover,  if  we  adopt  the  theory  that  an- 
other letter  intervened  between  our  two  canonical  Epistles, 
we  are  led  to  a  very  complicated  scheme  of  Paul's  transac- 
tions with  Corinth,  a  scheme  so  complicated  that  it  is  its  own 
condemnation. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  ancient  Church  was  unanimous  in  accepting  the 
Epistle  as  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God.  Of  the  apostolic 
fathers  Polycarp  plainly  quotes  it.  Marcion  included  it  in 
his  canon,  and  it  is  also  named  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment. 
The  Syriac  and  old  Latin  Versions  contain  it,  and  the  three 
great  witnesses  of  the  end  of  the  second  century  quote  it 
by  name. 

This  Epistle  too  has  permanent  value  for  the  Church  of 
God.  It  is  inseparably  connected  with  I  Corinthians,  and 
as  such  also  brings  out  that  it  is  not  the  wisdom  of  the 
world  but  the  foolishness  of  the  cross  that  saves ;  and  sheds 
further  light  on  the  application  of  Christian  principles  to 
social  relations.  More  than  any  other  Epistle  it  reveals  to 
us  the  apostle's  personality,  and  is  therefore  a  great  psycho- 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  175 


logical  aid  in  the  interpretation  of  his  writings.  It  also  has 
considerable  doctrinal  interest  in  that  it  exhibits  a  part  of 
the  apostle's  eschatology,  4:16 — 5:8;  brings  out  the  con- 
trast between  the  letter  and  the  spirit,  3  :  6-18  ;  describes  the 
beneficent  influence  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  3:  18 — 4:6;  and 
contains  an  explicit  statement  of  the  reconciliation  and 
renovation  wrought  by  Christ,  5  :  17-21. 


The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 


CONTENTS. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  may  be  divided  into  three 
parts : 

/.  Paul's  Defense  of  his  Apostleship,  1 :  1 — 2 :  21.  After 
the  usual  introduction  the  apostle  states  the  occasion  of  his 
writing,  1 :  1-10.  In  defense  of  his  apostleship  he  points  out 
that  he  has  been  called  by  God  himself  and  received  his 
Gospel  by  direct  revelation,  and  had  no  occasion  to  learn  it 
from  the  other  apostles,  1  :  11-24;  that  the  apostles  showed 
their  agreement  with  him  by  not  demanding  the  circumcision 
of  Titus  and  by  admitting  his  mission  to  the  gentiles,  2 :  1- 
10;  and  that  he  had  even  rebuked  Peter,  when  this  "pillar 
of  the  church"  was  not  true  to  the  doctrine  of  free  grace, 
2:11-21. 

//.  His  Defense  of  the  Doctrine  of  Justification,  3 :  1— 
4:31.  Here  the  apostle  clearly  brings  out  that  the  Galatians 
received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  by  faith,  3:1-5;  that  Abraham 
was  justified  by  faith,  3:6-9;  that  delivery  from  the  curse 
of  the  law  is  possible  only  through  faith.  3:  10-14;  and  that 
the  law  has  merely  a  parenthetic  character,  coming,  as  it 
does,  between  the  promise  and  its  fulfillment,  3:  15-29.  He 
compares  Judseism  to  a  son  who  is  minor,  and  Christianity 
to  a  son  that  has  attained  his  majority.  4:  1-7;  admonishes 
the  Galatians  that,  realizing  their  privilege,  they  should  not 
return  to  the  beggarly  elements  of  knowledge,  4:8-20;  and 
says  that  the  Jew  is  like  the  child  of  Hagar,  while  the  Chris- 
tian resembles  the  child  of  Sara,  4:  21-31. 

///.  Practical  Exhortations,  5  :  1 — 6 :  18.  The  Galatians 
are  exhorted  to  stand  in  their  Christian  hberty.  5 :  1-12,  a 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS  177 

liberty  that  is  not  license  but  obedience,  5 :  13-18.  The 
works  of  the  flesh  and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  described 
that  the  Galatians  may  avoid  the  former  and  yield  the  latter, 
5 :  19-26.  The  right  way  of  treating  the  erring  and  weak  is 
pointed  out,  and  also  the  relation  of  what  one  sows  to  what 
one  reaps,  5:  1-10.  With  a  brief  summary  and  benediction 
Paul  ends  his  letter,  6:  11-18. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  has  a  great  deal  in 
common  with  that  written  to  the  Romans.  They  both  treat 
the  same  general  theme,  viz.  that  by  the  works  of  the  law 
no  man  will  be  justified  before  God.  The  same  Old  Testa- 
ment passage  is  quoted  in  Rom.  4 :  3  and  Gal.  3:6;  and  the 
same  general  argument  is  built  on  it,  that  the  promise  be- 
longs to  those  who  have  faith  like  that  which  Abraham  had 
even  before  he  was  circumcized.  In  both  Epistles  Paul  aims 
at  reconciling  his  admission  that  the  Mosaic  law  came  from 
God  with  his  contention  that  it  was  not  binding  on  Chris- 
tians. Besides  these  similarities  there  are  also  several  verbal 
agreements  and  parallel  passages  in  these  letters.  Of  the 
latter  we  may  mention  Rom.  8 :  14-17  and  Gal.  4 :  5-7 ;  Rom. 
6 :  6-8  and  Gal.  2 :  20 ;  Rom.  13  :  13,  14  and  Gal.  5  :  16,  17. 

2.  But  however  similar  these  Epistles  may  be,  there  are 
also  striking  differences.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  Paul 
does  not  directly  encounter  such  as  are  hostile  to  the  truth 
or  personal  adversaries ;  hence  it  is  written  in  a  calm  spirit 
and  is  at  most  indirectly  polemical.  This  is  quite  different 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  There  were  those  in  the 
churches  of  Galatia  who  perverted  the  doctrine  of  the  cross 
and  called  the  apostolic  authority  of  Paul  in  question.  As  a 
result  this  is  one  of  the  most  controversial  writings  of  the 
apostle ;  it  is  an  outburst  of  indignant  feeling,  written  in  a 
fiery  tone. 

3.  This  Epistle  abounds  in  striking  contrasts.  Grace 
is  contrasted  with  the  Law  in  its  Jewish  application,  and 
especially  on  its  ritual  side ;  faith  is  placed  in  antithetic  rela- 


178  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

tion  to  the  works  of  man  ;  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  set 
over  against  the  works  of  the  flesh ;  circumcision  is  opposed 
to  the  new  creation ;  and  the  enmity  of  the  world  to  the  cross 
of  Christ  is  brought  out  in  strong  relief, 

4.  The  style  of  this  letter  is  rather  unique  in  that  it 
unites  the  two  extreme  affections  of  Paul's  admirable  char- 
acter :  severity  and  tenderness.  At  times  he  speaks  in  a  cold 
severe  tone,  as  if  he  would  scarcely  recognize  the  Galatians 
as  brethren ;  then  again  his  whole  heart  seems  to  yearn  for 
them.  It  is  hard  to  imagine  anything  more  solemnly  severe 
than  the  opening  verses  of  the  epistle  and  3 :  1-5  ;  but  it  is 
equally  difficult  to  conceive  of  something  more  tenderly 
affectionate  than  appeals  such  as  we  find  in  4:  12-16,  18-20. 
We  find  in  this  letter  a  beautiful  blending  of  sharp  invective 
and  tender  pleading. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  authorship  of  the  Epistle  need  not  be  subject  to 
doubt,  since  both  the  external  and  the  internal  evidence  are 
very  strong.  The  letter  is  found  in  Marcion's  canon,  is 
named  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  and  from  the  time  of 
Irenaeus  is  regularly  quoted  by  name.  But  even  if  the  ex- 
ternal testimony  were  not  so  strong,  internal  evidence  would 
be  quite  sufficient  to  establish  the  Pauline  authorship.  The 
letter  is  self-attested,  1:1,  and  clearly  reveals  the  character 
of  the  great  apostle ;  it  does  this  all  the  better,  since  it  is  so 
intensely  personal.  And  though  there  are  some  harmonistic 
difficulties,  when  we  compare  1  :  18  and  Acts  9 :  23  ; — 1 :  18, 
19  and  Acts  9:26;— 1:18;  2:1  and  Acts  9:26;  11:30; 
12:25;  15:2, — yet  these  are  not  insuperable,  and,  on  the 
whole,  the  historical  allusions  found  in  the  epistle  fit  in  well 
with  the  narrative  in  Acts. 

For  a  long  time  Bruno  Bauer  was  the  only  one  to  ques- 
tion the  authenticity  of  this  letter,  but  since  1882  the  Dutch 
school  of  Loman  and  Van  Manen  joined  him,  followed  by 
Friedrich  in  Germany.  The  principal  reason  for  doubting 
it  is  the  supposed  impossibility  of  so  rapid  a  development 


THE  EPISTI.E  TO  THE  GALATIANS  179 

of  the  contrast  between  Jewish  and  Pauhne  Christianity  as 
this  letter  presupposes.  But  the  facts  do  not  permit  us  to 
doubt  that  the  conflict  did  occur  then,  while  in  the  second 
century  it  had  died  out. 

THE  CHURCHES  OF  GALATIA. 

Among  the  Epistles  of  Paul  this  is  the  only  one  that  is 
expressly  addressed,  not  to  an  individual  nor  to  a  single 
church,  but  a  group  of  churches,  lalq  iY.v.Xt](jiat,q  iriq 
TotXa-ziixq,  1  :2.  When  did  the  apostle  found  these  Galatian 
churches  ?  The  answer  to  that  question  will  necessarily  de- 
pend on  our  interpretation  of  the  term  Galatia,  as  it  is  used, 
by  the  apostle.  There  is  a  twofold  use  of  this  appellative, 
viz.  the  geographical  and  the  political.  Geographically  the 
term  Galatia  denotes  one  of  the  Northern  districts  of  Asia 
Minor,  a  district  that  was  bounded  on  the  North  by  Bithynia 
and  Paplagonia,  on  the  East  by  the  last  named  province  and 
Pontus,  on  the  West  by  Phrygia,  and  on  the  South  by 
Lycaonia  and  Capadocia.  The  same  name  is  employed  in  an 
official,  political  sense,  however,  to  designate  the  Roman 
province  which  included  Galatia  proper,  a  part  of  Phrygia, 
Pisidia  and  Lycaonia.  This  twofold  significance  of  the  name 
Galatia  has  led  to  two  theories  respecting  the  location  of  the 
Galatian  churches,  viz.  the  North  and  the  South  Galatian 
theory.  The  former  still  represents  the  prevailing  view ;  but 
the  latter  is  accepted  by  an  ever  increasing  number  of 
scholars. 

According  to  the  North  Galatian  theory  the  churches  of 
Galatia  were  situated  in  the  geographical  district  indicated 
by  that  name.  Since  about  280  B.  C.  this  territory  was  in- 
habited by  a  Celtic  people,  consisting  of  three  separate  tribes, 
that  had  migrated  thither  from  Western  Europe,  and  who 
constituted  shortly  before  Christ  the  kingdom  of  Galatia. 
They  were  given  to  the  worship  of  Cybele  "with  its  wild 
ceremonial  and  hideous  mutilations ;"  and  were  character- 
ized by  fickleness  and  great  instability  of  character.  "In- 
constant and   quarrelsome,"   says   Lightfoot,    Com.   p.    14, 


180  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

•'treacherous  in  their  dealings,  incapable  of  sustained  effort, 
easily  disheartened  by  failures,  such  they  appear,  when 
viewed  on  their  darker  side."  The  adherents  of  this  theory 
are  generally  agreed  that  Paul,  in  all  probability,  founded 
the  Galatian  churches  in  the  most  important  cities  of  this 
district,  i.  e.  in  the  capital  Ancyra,  in  Pessinus,  the  principal 
seat  of  the  hideous  service  of  Cybele,  and  at  Tavium.  at 
once  a  strong  fortress  and  a  great  commercial  center.  The 
South  Galatian  theory,  on  the  other  hand,  identifies  the 
Galatian  churches  with  those  founded  by  Paul  on  his  first 
missionary  journey  at  Pisidian  Antioch,  Iconium,  Lystra 
and  Derbe.  not  excluding  any  other  churches  that  may  have 
been  founded  in  the  province. 

The  North  Galatian  theory  is  supported  by  the  following 
considerations  :  (T )  It  is  unlikely  that  Paul  would  address 
the  inhabitants  of  Phrygia,  Pisidia  and  Lycaonia  as  Gala- 
tians.  That  name  could  properly  be  given  only  to  the  Celts, 
the  Gauls  that  lived  in  Galatia  proper.  (2)  It  is  improbable 
that  Paul  would  have  referred  to  the  churches  founded  by 
him  and  Barnabas  jointly,  as  if  they  had  been  established  by 
him  alone.  (3)  The  character  of  the  Galatians,  as  it  is  re- 
flected in  this  letter,  is  in  remarkable  agreement  with  that 
of  the  Celts  whose  changeableness  was  a  subject  of  common 
comment.  (4)  Since  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  Mysia, 
Phrygia  and  Pisidia  are  all  geographical  terms,  without  any 
political  significance,  the  inference  seems  perfectly  war- 
ranted that  the  name  Galatia,  when  it  is  found  alongside  of 
these,  is  employed  in  a  similar  sense.  (5)  "The  expression 
used  in  the  Acts  of  Paul's  visit  to  these  parts,  'the  Phrygian 
and  Galatian  country,'  shows  that  the  district  intended  was 
not  Lycaonia  and  Pisidia,  but  some  region  which  might  be 
said  to  belong  either  to  Phrygia  or  Galatia,  or  the  parts  of 
each  contiguous  to  the  other."     (Lightfoot). 

Now  we  are  not  inclined  to  underrate  the  value  of  these 
arguments,  but  yet  it  seems  to  us  that  they  are  not  altogether 
conclusive.  The  first  one  impresses  us  as  a  rather  gratuitous 
assumption.    Taking  in  consideration  that  the  Roman  prov- 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS  181 

ince  of  Galatia  was  organized  as  early  as  25  B.  C.  (Cf. 
Ramsay,  Historical  Conim.  on  the  Galatians,  p.  103  ff.  and 
J.  Weiss,  Real-Enc.  Art.  Kleinasien),  and  had  therefore 
existed  at  least  75  years,  when  Paul  wrote  this  letter,  it  is 
hard  to  see,  why  he  could  not  address  its  inhabitants  as 
Galatians.  This  is  true  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  apostle  shows  a  decided  preference  for  the  imperial 
nomenclature,  probably  since  it  was  the  most  honorable. 
Moreover  in  writing  to  the  congregations  in  South  Galatia 
he  could  not  very  well  use  any  other  name,  if  he  did  not 
wish  to  address  them  in  a  very  cumbrous  way. — In  connec- 
tion with  the  second  argument  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
this  Epistle  was  written  after  the  rupture  between  Barnabas 
and  Paul,  when,  so  it  seems,  the  labor  was  divided  so  that 
Paul  received  charge  of  the  South  Galatian  churches.  It 
was  but  natural  therefore  that  he  should  feel  the  sole 
responsibility  for  them. — On  the  third  argument  Salmon, 
who  also  advocates  the  North  Galatian  theory,  would  wisely 
place  little  reliance,  because  "it  may  be  doubted  whether 
Celts  formed  the  predominating  element  in  the  churches  of 
Galatia,"  and  since  "men  of  different  nationalities  show  a 
common  nature."  Introd.  p.  412. — We  do  not  feel  the 
cogency  of  the  fourth  argument  for,  granted  that  Luke  does 
use  the  term  Galatia  in  its  geographical  sense,  this  does 
not  prove  anything  as  to  Paul's  usage.  In  fact  the  presump- 
tion is  that  the  apostle  did  not  so  use  it. — And  the  last  argu- 
ment is  of  rather  dubious  value,  since  it  rests  on  an  uncertain 
interpretation  of  the  expressions  ttjv  ^poyiocw  Y.a\  raXaTiy,Y)V 
Xwpav,  Acts  16:,  and  tyjv  raXaTty.rjv  Xwpov  /.ac  ^puyt'ov, 
Acts  18 :  23.  The  expression  in  16 :  6  can  probably  also  be 
translated  "the  Phrygo-Galatic  region,"  referring  to  that 
part  of  the  province  Galatia  that  included  Antioch  and 
Iconium,  and  that  originally  belonged  to  Phrygia.  In  18 :  23, 
however,  where  the  names  are  reversed,  we  must  translate, 
"the  Galatic  territory  and  Phrygia,"  the  last  name  then, 
according  to  Ramsay,  referring  to  either  Phrygia  Galatica 
or  Phrygia  Magna.     In  any  event  it  seems  peculiar  that 


182  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Paul,  if  in  these  places  he  has  reference  to  Galatia  proper, 
should  speak  of  the  Galatian  territory  rather  than  of  Galatia. 
The  North  Galatian  theory  is  defended  by  Weiss,  David- 
son, Jiilicher,  Godet  and  especially  by  Lightfoot.  But  the 
South  Galatian  theory  also  has  able  defenders,  such  as 
Renan,  Hausrath,  Zahn,  Baljon  and  above  all  Ramsay,  whose 
extended  travels  and  research  in  Asia  Minor,  combined  with 
great  learning,  enable  him  to  speak  with  authority  on  ques- 
tions pertaining  to  that  district.  This  theory  assumes  that 
Paul  used  the  name  Galatia  in  its  official  political  sense,  and 
that  the  Galatian  churches  were  those  of  Antioch,  Iconium, 
Lystra  and  Derbe,  e.  a.  Although  we  do  not  feel  inclined  to 
speak  dogmatically  on  the  subject,  it  seems  to  us  that  this 
theory  deserves  preference  for  the  following  reasons:  (1) 
It  was  evidently  Paul's  uniform  custom  to  denote  the  loca- 
tion of  the  churches  which  he  founded,  not  by  the  popular 
but  by  the  official  nomenclature.  Thus  he  speaks  of  the 
churches  of  Asia,  I  Cor.  16:19;  the  churches  of  Macedonia, 
II  Cor.  8:1;  and  the  churches  of  Achaia,  II  Cor.  1:1.  And 
that  this  was  not  something  peculiar  to  Paul,  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  Peter  does  the  same  in  I  Peter  1:1,  where  the 
term  Galatia  is  obviously  used  in  its  political  sense,  since  all 
the  other  names  refer  to  Roman  provinces.  Even  Light- 
foot  admits  that  this  is  probably  the  case.  (2)  That  Paul 
founded  churches  in  the  Roman  province  of  Galatia  is  a  well 
attested  fact,  of  which  we  have  a  detailed  narrative  in  Acts 
13  and  14;  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  no  record  whatever 
of  his  establishing  churches  in  the  district  of  that  name.  It 
is  certainly  not  very  obvious  that  Luke  in  Acts  16 : 6  wants 
to  convey  the  idea  that  the  apostle  established  churches  in 
North  Galatia.  The  most  that  can  be  said,  is  that  Acts 
18:23  implies  such  previous  activity  on  the  part  of  Paul; 
but  even  this  depends  on  the  correct  interpretation  of  the 
phrase,  "the  country  of  Galatia  and  Phrygia."  Lightfoot 
himself  regards  it  as  "strange  that,  while  we  have  more  or 
less  acquaintance  with  all  the  other  important  churches  of 
St.  Paul's  founding,  not  a  single  name  of  a  person  or  place, 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS  183 

scarcely  a  single  incident  of  any  kind,  connected  with  the 
apostle's  preaching  in  Galatia,  should  be  preserved  either 
in  the  history  or  in  the  epistle."  Comm.  p.  20.  (3)  The 
Epistle  refers  to  the  collection  for  the  Judaean  saints,  2 :  10 
and  in  I  Cor.  16:  1  Paul  says  that  he  commanded  the 
churches  in  Galatia  to  take  part  in  this.  What  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  Galatia  here?  From  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
we  gather  that  the  churches  of  Galatia,  I  Cor.  16:  1,  Mace- 
donia, II  Cor.  '8:1;  9:2;  and  Achaia,  Rom.  15:26,  con- 
tributed for  this  cause ;  while  from  Acts  20 : 4  we  learn  that 
representatives  from  Asia  also  accompanied  Paul  to  Jeru- 
salem, according  to  the  principle  laid  down  in  I  Cor. 
16:3,  4.  Now  if  we  take  the  name  Galatia  in  its  official 
sense  here,  then  all  the  churches  founded  by  Paul  are  seen  to 
participate  in  this  work  of  charity ;  while  if  we  interpret  it 
as  referring  to  North  Galatia,  the  churches  of  Antioch, 
Iconium,  Lystra  and  Derbe  are  not  mentioned,  and  the  im- 
pression is  created  that  they  did  not  take  part.  But  this  is 
exceedingly  improbable,  and  the  improbability  is  heightened 
by  the  fact  that  among  the  representatives  accompanying 
Paul  we  also  find  Secundus  and  Gajus  of  Derbe  and  Timo- 
theus  of  Lystra.  while  there  are  none  to  represent  North 
Galatia.  (4)  From  Gal.  4:13  we  learn  that  Paul  first 
preached  the  gospel  to  the  Galatians  through  infirmity  of  the 
flesh.  This  may  mean  that  Paul,  traveling  through  Galatia, 
was  detained  there  by  sickness,  or  that  he  repaired  to  this 
district,  in  order  to  recuperate  from  some  disease.  But  the 
road  through  North  Galatia  did  not  lead  to  any  place,  where 
Paul  was  likely  to  go,  and  its  climate  was  very  undesirable 
for  an  invalid.  On  the  other  hand  the  supposition  is  alto- 
gether natural  that  the  apostle  contracted  some  disease  in 
the  marshy  lowlands  of  Pamphylia,  and  therefore  sought 
restoration  in  the  bracing  atmosphere  of  Pisidian  Antioch. 
(5)  In  this  Epistle  Paul  repeatedly  mentions  Barnabas  as 
a  person  well  known  to  the  Galatians,  2:1,  9,  13.  Now  he 
was  Paul's  co-laborer  in  establishing  the  South  Galatian 
churches,  but  did  not  accompany  the  apostle  on  his  second 


184  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

missionary  journey,  when  the  churches  of  North  Galatia  are 
supposed  to  have  been  founded.  It  is  true  that  this  argu- 
ment is  somewhat  neutraHzed  by  the  fact  that  Barnabas  is 
mentioned  also  in  I  Cor.  9:6;  yet  this  is  not  altogether  the 
case,  since  the  references  in  Galatians  are  more  specific.  In 
2 : 9,  where  Paul  seeks  to  establish  his  apostleship,  he  also 
seems  to  consider  it  desirable  to  vindicate  the  legitimacy  of 
Barnabas'  mission;  while  in  2:  13  he  presupposes  that  his 
readers  have  knowledge  of  the  stand  taken  by  Barnabas 
with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  free  grace.  We  conclude, 
therefore,  that  the  Galatian  churches  were  in  all  probability 
those  founded  by  Paul  on  his  first  missionary  journey  in 
South  Galatia.  Cf.  especially  Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the 
Roman  Empire  pp.  3-112;  St.  Paul  the  Traveler  and  the 
Roman  Citizen  pp.  89-151 ;  and  Zahn's  Einleitnng  II  pp. 
124-139. 

The  Galatian  churches  were  mainly  composed  of  Gen- 
tile-Christians, but  also  contained  an  important  Jewish  ele- 
ment. This  can  be  inferred  from  the  narrative  in  Acts 
13  and  14.  The  Gentiles  were  eager  to  receive  the  truth. 
13:42,  46-48;  14:1,  while  the  Jews  were  very  much 
divided,  some  believingly  accepting  the  word  of  the  apostles, 
13:43;  14:  1,  and  others  rejecting  it  with  scorn  and  mal- 
treating the  messengers  of  the  cross,  13  :  45,  50 ;  40 :  2,  5,  19. 
The  impression  received  from  the  narrative  is  corroborated 
by  the  Epistle,  which  in  the  main  addresses  itself  to  the 
Greeks  who  had  not  yet  accepted  circumcision,  but  had  of 
late  been  urged  to  submit  to  this  rite,  if  not  to  all  the  Jew- 
ish ceremonies,  that  they  might  share  in  the  covenant  bless- 
ings of  Abraham.  The  apostle  describes  the  whole  congre- 
gation according  to  the  majojrity  of  its  members,  when  he 
says  in  4 : 8,  "Howbeit  then,  when  ye  knew  not  God,  ye  did 
service  unto  them  which  by  nature  are  no  gods."  Yet  it  is 
evident  from  3 :  23-25,  28  that  he  also  bears  the  Jewish  ele- 
ment in  mind.  We  need  not  doubt,  however,  that  the  major- 
ity of  the  Greeks  that  constituted  the  Galatian  churches  had 
already  for  some  time  attended  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS  185 

before  they  were  converted  to  Christianity,  and  therefore 
belonged  to  the  proselytes,  the  so-called  devout  persons  of 
whom  Acts  repeatedly  speaks.  This  may  be  inferred  from 
Acts  13:43;  14:  1,  and  from  the  fact  that  the  apostle  pre- 
supposes a  certain  familiarity  in  his  readers  with  the  patri- 
archal history,  the  Law,  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  After  Paul  had  preached  the 
gospel  to  the  Galatians  and  had  seen  them  well  started  on 
the  royal  road  to  salvation,  Judaeizing  teachers  entered  the 
field,  jealous  of  their  Jewish  prerogatives.  Probably  they 
were  emissaries  from  Jerusalem  that  abused  a  commission 
entrusted  to  them,  or  assumed  an  authority  which  they  in 
no  way  possessed.  They  did  not  combat  Christianity  as 
such,  but  desired  that  it  should  be  led  in  Judaeistic  channels. 
Every  convert  to  Christianity  should  submit  to  circumcision, 
if  not  to  the  whole  ceremonial  law.  Their  teaching  was 
quite  the  opposite  of  Paul's  doctrine,  and  could  only  be 
maintained  by  discrediting  the  apostle.  Hence  they  sought 
to  undermine  his  personal  influence  and  to  depreciate  his 
apostolic  authority  by  claiming  that  he  had  not  been  called 
of  God  and  had  received  the  truth  at  second-hand  from  the 
Twelve.  It  seems  that  Paul,  when  he  last  visited  the  Gala- 
tian  churches,  had  already  encountered  some  such  enemies, 
1 : 9,  but  he  now  heard  that  their  influence  was  increasing, 
and  that  they  were  successful  in  persuading  the  Galatians 
to  forsake  their  Christian  privileges,  and  thus  virtually 
though  perhaps  unwittingly,  to  deny  Christ  who  had  bought 
them,  3  :  1 ;  4 :  9-11,  17 ;  5:7,  8,  10.  Hence  he  deems  it  im- 
perative to  write  them  a  letter. 

The  purpose  of  the  author  in  writing  this  Epistle  was, 
of  course,  twofold.  In  order  that  his  words  might  be  effect- 
ive, it  was  necessary,  first  of  all,  that  he  should  defend  his 
apostolic  authority  by  proving  that  God  had  called  him  and 
had  imparted  the  truth  of  the  gospel  to  him  by  means  of  a 
direct  revelation.    And  in  the  second  place  it  was  incumbent 


186  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

on  him  that  he  should  expose  the  Judaeistic  error  by  which 
they  were  led  astray,  and  should  defend  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  There  is  great  diversity  of  opinion 
as  to  the  time,  when  the  Epistle  was  written.  Zahn,  Haus- 
rath,  Baljon  and  Rendall  (in  The  Exp.  Gk.  Test.)  regard 
it  as  the  earliest  of  Paul's  Epistles,  and  assume  that  it  was 
written  during  the  early  part  of  his  stay  in  Corinth  in  the 
year  53.  Ramsay  thinks  it  was  written  from  Antioch  at  the 
end  of  the  second  missionary  journey,  i.  e.  according  to  his 
dating,  also  in  A.  D.  53.  Weiss.  Holtzmann  and  Godet  refer 
it  to  the  early  part  of  Paul's  Ephesian  residence,  about  the 
year  54  or  55,  while  Warfield  prefers  to  place  it  towards  the 
end  of  this  period  in  A.  D.  57.  And  finally  Lightfoot  and 
Salmon  agree  in  dating  it  after  Paul's  departure  from  Ephe- 
sus.  This  great  variety  of  opinion  proves  that  the  data  for 
determining  the  time  are  few  and  uncertain.  Those  accept- 
ing the  North  Galatian  theory  are  virtually  confined  to  a 
date  after  the  beginning  of  Paul's  Ephesian  residence  in  the 
year  54,  because  the  Tupoxepov  of  Gal.  4:13  seems  to  imply 
that  the  apostle  had  visited  the  churches  of  Galatia  twice 
before  he  wrote  his  letter;  while  it  is  for  the  same  reason 
most  natural  that  they  who  advocate  the  South  Galatian 
theory,  find  their  terminus  a  quo  in  A.  D.  52  (McGififert 
notwithstanding),  when  Paul  had  paid  a  second  visit  to  the 
South  Galatian  churches.  Assuming,  as  we  do,  that  this  letter 
was  addressed  to  the  churches  of  South  Galatia,  we  may  dis- 
miss the  idea  that  the  apostle  wrote  it  during  the  third  mis- 
sionary journey,  because  this  would  imply  that  he  had 
already  visited  them  three  times,  in  which  case  he  would 
have  used  Tupwtov  instead  of  Tcpoxepov  in  4:13.  Moreover 
if  Paul  wrote  it  from  Ephesus,  the  question  is  naturally 
raised,  why  he  did  not  visit  the  Galatians  rather  than  write 
to  them,  seeing  that  he  had  a  great  desire  to  be  with  them, 
4 :  20.  We  are  inclined  to  think  that  Paul  wrote  this  letter 
on  his  second  missionary  journey,  after  he  had  passed  into 
Europe,  and  probably  during  the  first  part  of  his  residence 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS  187 

at  Corinth,  for:  (1)  Gal.  4:20  implies  that  Paul  was  at 
some  distance  from  the  Galatian  churches;  (2)  The  letter 
presupposes  that  some  time  had  elapsed  between  its  composi- 
tion and  the  second  visit  of  the  apostle;  and  (3)  The  letter 
contains  no  greetings  from  Silas  and  Timotheus,  who  were 
both  well  known  to  the  Galatians.  Evidently  they  had  not 
yet  reached  Corinth. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

There  has  never  been  any  serious  doubt  respecting  the 
canonicity  of  this  Epistle.  It  was  received  as  authoritative 
in  all  sections  of  the  Church  from  the  very  earliest  times. 
There  are  allusions  to  its  language  in  the  apostolic  fathers, 
Clement  of  Rome,  Poly  carp  and  Ignatius.  Justin  Martyr, 
Melito  and  Athanagoras  seem  to  have  known  it ;  and  some 
of  the  heretics,  especially  the  Ophites,  used  it  extensively. 
It  is  found  in  Marcion's  canon,  is  named  in  the  Muratorian 
Fragment,  and  the  Syriac  and  old  Latin  versions  contain  it. 
From  the  end  of  the  second  century  the  quotations  multiply 
and  increase  in  directness  and  definiteness. 

This  Epistle  too  has  abiding  significance  for  the  Church 
of  God.  It  is  essentially  a  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  free 
grace,  of  the  Christian  hberty  of  New  Testament  believers 
over  against  those  that  would  bring  them  under  the  law  in 
its  Old  Testament  application,  and  would  place  them  under 
the  obligation  to  submit  to  circumcision  and  to  participate 
in  the  shadowy  ceremonies  of  a  by-gone  day.  The  great 
central  exhortation  of  this  letter  is :  "Stand  fast  in  the 
liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,  and  be  not 
tangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage."  The  way  of  the 
ritualist  is  not  the  way  of  life,  is  the  lesson  that  should  be 
remembered  by  all  those  who  are  inclined  to  over-emphasize 
the  outward  form  of  religion  to  the  neglect  of  its  spirit  and 
essence. 


The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 


CONTENTS. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  naturally  divided  into 
two  parts : 

/.  The  Doctrinal  Part,  treating  of  the  Unity  of  the 
Church,  1  :  1 — 3:  21.  After  the  address  and  salutation. 1 :  1, 
2,  the  apostle  praises  God  for  the  great  spiritual  blessings 
received  in  Christ,  in  whom  the  Ephesians  have  been  chosen, 
adopted  and  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  1 :  3-14. 
He  renders  thanks  for  these  blessings  and  prays  that  God 
may  make  known  to  the  Church,  the  glorious  body  of  Christ, 
who  filleth  all  in  all,  the  glory  of  its  heavenly  calling,  1:15- 
23.  Then  he  compares  the  past  and  present  condition  of  the 
readers,  2:  1-13,  and  describes  Christ's  work  of  reconcilia- 
tion, resulting  in  the  unity  and  glory  of  the  Church,  2  :  14-22. 
Next  he  enlarges  on  the  mystery  of  the  Gospel  and  reminds 
his  readers  that  he  has  been  commissioned  by  God  to  make 
it  known  to  mankind,  3 :  1-13.  He  prays  that  they  may  be 
strengthened  and  enabled  to  comprehend  the  greatness  of 
the  love  of  Christ  to  the  glory  of  God,  3 :  14-21. 

//.  The  Practical  Part,  containing  Exhortations  to  a 
Conversation  zvorthy  of  the  Calling  and  Unity  of  the  Read- 
ers, 4 :  1 — 6 :  20.  The  readers  are  exhorted  to  maintain  the 
unity  which  God  seeks  to  establish  among  them  by  distribut- 
ing spiritual  gifts  and  instituting  different  offices,  4:1-16. 
They  should  not  walk  as  the  Gentiles  do,  but  according  to 
the  principle  of  their  new  life,  shunning  the  vices  of  the  old 
man  and  practicing  the  virtues  of  the  new,  4:  17-32.  In 
society  it  must  be  their  constant  endeavor  to  be  separate 
from  the  evils  of  the  world  and  to  walk  circumspectly ;  hus- 
bands and  wives  should  conform  in  their  mutual  relation  to 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS  189 

the  image  of  Christ  and  the  Church ;  children  should  obey 
their  parents  and  servants  their  masters,  5  :  1 — 6 :  9.  Finally 
Paul  exhorts  the  readers  to  be  strong  in  the  Lord,  having 
put  on  the  whole  armour  of  God  and  seeking  strength  in 
prayer  and  supplication ;  and  he  closes  his  Epistle  with  some 
personal  intelligence  and  a  twofold  salutation,  6 :  10-24. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  This  letter  is  marked  first  of  all  by  its  general  char- 
acter. It  has  this  in  common  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
that  it  partakes  somewhat  of  the  nature  of  a  treatise ;  yet  it 
is  as  truly  a  letter,  as  any  one  of  the  other  writings  of  Paul. 
Deissmann  correctly  remarks,  however,  that  "the  personal 
element  is  less  prominent  in  it  than  the  impersonal."  St. 
Paul,  p.  23.  The  letter  does  not  presuppose,  like  those  to 
the  Corinthians  and  to  the  Galatians,  some  special  clearly 
marked  historical  situation,  does  not  refer  to  any  historical 
incidents  known  to  us  from  other  sources,  except  the  im- 
prisonment of  Paul,  and  contains  no  personal  greetings.  The 
only  person  mentioned  is  Tychicus,  the  bearer  of  the  letter. 
It  treats  in  a  profound  and  sublime  manner  of  the  unity  of 
all  believers  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  holy  conversation 
in  Christ  that  must  issue  from  it. 

2.  It  is  also  characterized  by  its  great  similarity  to  the 
letter  sent  to  the  Colossians.  This  is  so  great  that  some 
critics  have  regarded  it  as  merely  a  revised  and  enlarged 
edition  of  the  latter ;  but  this  idea  must  be  dismissed  alto- 
gether, because  the  difference  between  them  is  too  great  and 
fundamental.  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  more  personal 
and  controversial  than  that  to  the  Ephesians ;  the  former 
treats  of  Christ,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  while  the  latter  is 
mainly  concerned  with  the  Church,  the  body  of  Christ.  Not- 
withstanding this,  however,  the  resemblance  of  the  two  is 
readily  observed.  There  is  good  reason  for  calling  them 
twin  letters.  In  many  cases  the  same  words  and  forms  of 
expression  are  found  in  both ;  the  thought  is  often  identical, 


190  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

while  the  language  differs ;  and  the  general  structure  of  the 
Epistles  is  very  similar. 

3.  The  style  of  the  letter  is  in  general  very  exalted,  and 
forms  a  great  contrast  with  that  of  the  epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians.  Dr.  Sanday  says :  "With  few  exceptions  scholars 
of  all  different  schools  who  have  studied  and  interpreted  this 
epistle  have  been  at  one  in  regarding  it  as  one  of  the  sublim- 
est  and  most  profound  of  all  the  New  Testament  writings. 
In  the  judgment  of  many  who  are  well  entitled  to  deliver 
an  opinion,  it  is  the  grandest  of  all  the  Pauline  letters." 
The  Exp.  Gk.  Test.  IIJ  p.  208.  The  style  is  characterized 
by  a  succession  of  participial  clauses  and  dependent  sen- 
tences that  flow  on  like  a  torrent,  and  by  lengthy  digressions. 
One  is  impressed  by  its  grandeur,  but  often  finds  it  difficult 
to  follow  the  apostle  as  he  soars  to  giddy  heights.  The  lan- 
guage is  further  remarkable  in  that  it  contains  a  series  of 
terms  with  far-reaching  significance,  such  as  the  council 
(^ouXtq)  of  God,  His  will  (GeXi^pLa),  His  purpose  (TrpoOeat?), 
His  good  pleasure  (euSoxcos),  etc.,  and  also  a  great 
number  of  aiua^  Xeyoixeva.  According  to  Holtzmann 
there  are  76  words  that  are  peculiar  to  this  epistle,  of  which 
18  are  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible,  17  do  not  occur  in 
the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  and  51  are  absent  from  all 
the  other  Pauline  letters  (the  Pastoral  epistles  being  ex- 
cepted).   Einleitung  p.  259. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  historical  evidence  for  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the 
Epistle  is  exceptionally  strong.  Some  scholars  claim  that 
Ignatius  even  speaks  of  Paul  as  the  author,  when  he  says 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians :  " — who  (referring  back 
to  Paul)  throughout  all  his  Epistle  (ev  iraar;  extaxoXT]) 
makes  mention  of  you  in  Christ  Jesus."  But  it  is  very  doubt- 
ful, whether  the  rendering,  "in  all  the  Epistle,"  should  not 
rather  be,  "in  every  Epistle."  Marcion  ascribed  the  letter 
to  Paul,  and  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment  the  church  of 
Ephesus  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  churches  to  which  Paul 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS  191 

wrote  Epistles.  Irenaeus  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  refer 
to  Paul  by  name  as  the  author  of  this  letter  and  quote  it  as 
his,  while  Tertullian  mentions  Ephesus  among  the  churches 
that  had  apostolic  Epistles. 

Internal  evidence  also  points  to  Paul  as  the  author.  In 
the  opening  verse  of  the  Epistle  the  writer  is  named,  and  the 
structure  of  the  letter  is  characteristically  Pauline.  In  the 
first  place  it  contains  the  usual  blessing  and  thanksgiving; 
this  is  followed  in  the  regular  way  by  the  body  of  the  epistle, 
consisting  of  a  doctrinal  and  a  practical  part ;  and  finally  it 
ends  with  the  customary  salutations.  The  ideas  developed 
are  in  perfect  agreement  with  those  found  in  the  letters 
which  we  already  discussed,  although  in  certain  particulars 
they  advance  beyond  them,  as  f .  i.  in  the  theological  concep- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  redemption ;  and  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  as  the  body  of  Christ  with  its  various  organs. 
The  style  of  the  Epistle  too  is  Pauline.  It  is  true  that  it 
J  differs  considerably  from  that  of  Romans,  Corinthians  and 
Galatians,  but  it  shows  great  affinity  with  the  style  of  Colos- 
sians  and  of  the  Pastorals. 

Notwithstanding  all  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Pauline 
authorship  of  this  Epistle,  its  authenticity  has  been  ques- 
tioned by  several  New  Testament  scholars.  De  Wette,  Baur 
and  his  school,  Davidson,  Holtzmann  and  Weizsacker  are 
among  the  most  prominent.  The  idea  is  that  some  later, 
probably  a  second  century  writer  impersonated  the  great  ' 
apostle.  The  principal  grounds  on  which  the  Epistle  was 
attacked,  are  the  following :  ( 1 )  It  is  so  like  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians  that  it  cannot  be  an  original  document.  De 
Wette  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  a  "verbose  ampli- 
fication" of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  Holtzmann,  find- 
ing that  in  some  parts  the  priority  must  be  ascribed  to 
Ephesians  rather  than  to  Colossians,  advocated  the  theory 
that  Paul  wrote  an  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  shorter  than 
our  canonical  letter ;  that  a  forger,  guided  by  this,  fabricated 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians ;  and  that  this  plagiarist  was  so 
enamoured  with  his  work  that  he,  in  turn,  revised  the  Colos- 


192  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

sian  Epistle  in  accordance  with  it.  (2)  The  vocabulary  and 
in  general  the  style  of  the  Epistle  is  so  different  from  that 
of  the  other  letters  of  Paul  as  to  give  it  an  un-Pauline  stamp. 
This  objection  is  based  partly,  though  not  primarily,  on  the 
numerous  aTta^  Xexofieva ;  but  especially  on  the  use  of 
Pauline  words  in  a  new  sense,  such  as  (jLuaxiQptov,  ot^ovoiJLca 
and  TceptTTOtT^aK; ;  on  the  expression  of  certain  ideas  by 
terms  that  differ  from  those  employed  elsewhere  by  the 
apostle  for  the  same  purpose,  as  f.  i.  6  Oeog  toy  xupt'ou 
ifj[jL(ov  'Iyjuou  xptfJTOu,  1 :17,  and  above  all  toI?  cxyioiq 
aTCoaxoXoi?  /.at  xpo^-OTat?,  3:S,  which,  it  is  said,  smacks  of 
a  later  time,  when  the  apostles  were  held  in  great  venera- 
tion, and  does  not  agree  with  the  apostle's  estimate  of  him- 
self in  3 :  8 ;  and  on  the  fact  that,  as  Davidson  puts  it,  "there 
is  a  fulness  of  expression  which  approaches  the  verbose." 
(3)  The  line  of  thought  in  this  letter  is  very  different  from 
that  of  the  recognized  Pauline  Epistles.  The  law  is  con- 
templated, not  in  its  moral  and  religious  value,  but  only  as 
the  cause  of  enmity  and  separation  between  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile;  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  dwelt  on  as  much  as  in  the 
other  Epistles,  while  his  exaltation  is  made  far  more  promi- 
nent ;  the  parousia  is  placed  in  the  distant  future ;  and  in- 
stead of  the  diversity  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  Jesus  Christ 
if  emphasized.  (4)  The  Epistle  contains  traces  of  Gnostic 
and  even  of  Montanist  influences  in  such  words  as  atwve?, 
xXY]po)pLa  and  Ysveat.  (5)  The  letter,  along  with  the  writ- 
ings of  John,  evidently  aims  at  reconciling  the  Petrine  and 
Pauline  factions,  and  therefore  emphasizes  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  This  unmistakably  points  to  the  second  century 
as  the  time  of  its  composition. 

But  these  objections  are  not  sufficient  to  discredit  the 
Pauline  authorship.  Such  men  as  Lightfoot,  Ellicott,  Eadie, 
Meyer,  Hodge,  Reuss,  Godet,  Weiss,  Baljon,  Zahn,  Sanday 
and  Abbot  defend  it.  The  similarity  of  the  Epistle  and  that 
to  the  Colossians  is  most  naturally  explained  by  the  fact  that 
the  two  were  written  by  the  same  author,  at  about  the  same 
time,  under  similar  circumstances,  and  to  neighboring  con- 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS  193 

gregations.  The  idea  that  it  is  but  a  copy  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  is  now  generally  given  up,  since  it  appears 
that  many  passages  favor  the  priority  of  Ephesians.  The 
theory  of  Holtzmann  is  too  complicated  to  command  serious 
consideration.  This  whole  argument  is  very  peculiar  in  view 
of  the  following  ones.  While  it  derives  its  point  from  the 
Epistle's  similarity  to  Colossians,  their  cogency  depends  on 
the  unlikeness  of  this  letter  to  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul. 
The  linguistic  features  to  which  the  critics  call  attention 
are  not  such  as  to  disprove  the  Pauline  authorship.  If  the 
(ZTca^  XeYOjJLSva  found  in  this  letter  prove  that  it  is  un- 
Pauline,  we  must  come  to  a  similar  conclusion  with  respect 
to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  for  this  contains  a  hundred 
words  that  are  peculiar.  The  terms  that  are  said  to  be  used 
in  a  new  sense  dwindle  into  insignificance  on  closer  inspec- 
tion. And  of  the  expressions  that  are  held  to  be  unusual 
only  the  one  in  3 :  5  has  any  argumentative  force.  And  even 
this  need  not  cause  surprise,  especially  not,  if  we  take  in 
consideration  that  Paul  designates  believers  in  general  as 
(ZYtot,  and  that  in  this  place  he  applies  this  epithet  at  once 
to  the  apostles  and  to  the  prophets.  And  further  we  may 
ask,  whether  it  is  reasonable  to  demand  that  such  a  fertile 
mind  as  that  of  Paul  should  always  express  itself  in  the  same 
way.  The  argument  derived  from  the  line  of  thought  in  this 
Epistle  simply  succeeds  in  proving,  what  is  perfectly  obvi- 
ous, that  the  apostle  looks  at  the  work  of  redemption  from 
a  point  of  view  different  from  that  of  the  other  letters,  that 
he  views  it  sub  specie  aeternitatis.  It  is  now  generally  ad- 
mitted that  the  supposed  traces  of  Gnosticism  and  Montan- 
ism  have  no  argumentative  value,  since  the  terms  referred 
to  do  not  have  the  second  century  connotation  in  this  Epistle. 
Similarly  that  other  argument  of  the  Tubingen  school,  that 
the  letter  was  evidently  written  to  heal  the  breach  between 
the  Judaeistic  and  the  liberal  factions  of  the  Church,  is  now 
discarded,  because  it  was  found  to  rest  on  an  unhistorical 
basis. 


194  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

DESTINATION. 

There  is  considerable  uncertainty  respecting  the  destina- 
tion of  this  Epistle.  The  question  is  whether  the  words  iv 
'E(p£a<p  in  1  :1  are  genuine.  They  are  indeed  found  in  all 
the  extant  MSS.  with  the  exception  of  three,  viz.  the  im- 
portant MSS.  Aleph  and  B  and  codex  67.  The  testimony 
of  Basil  is  that  the  most  ancient  MSS.  in  his  day  did  not  con- 
tain these  words.  Tertullian  informs  us  that  Marcion  gave 
the  Epistle  the  title  ad  Laodicenos;  and  Origen  apparently 
did  not  regard  the  words  as  genuine.  All  the  old  Versions 
contain  them ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  Westcott  and  Hort 
say :  "Transcriptional  evidence  strongly  supports  the  testi- 
mony of  documents  against  sv  'E^eato."  New  Testament 
in  Greek,  Appendix  p.  123.  Yet  there  was  in  the  Church  an 
early  and,  except  as  regards  Marcion,  universal  tradition 
that  the  Epistle  was  addressed  to  the  Ephesians.  Present 
day  scholars  quite  generally  reject  the  words,  although  they 
are  still  defended  by  Meyer,  Davidson,  Eadie  and  Hodge. 
The  conclusion  to  which  the  majority  of  scholars  come  is, 
either  that  the  Epistle  was  not  written  to  the  Ephesians  at 
all,  or  that  it  was  not  meant  for  them  only,  but  also  for  the 
other  churches  in  Asia. 

Now  if  we  examine  the  internal  evidence,  we  find  that  it 
certainly  favors  the  idea  that  this  Epistle  was  not  intended 
for  the  Ephesian  church  exclusively,  for  ( 1 )  It  contains  no 
references  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  Ephesian 
church,  but  might  be  addressed  to  any  of  the  churches 
founded  by  Paul.  (2)  There  are  no  salutations  in  it  from 
Paul  or  his  companions  to  any  one  in  the  Ephesian  church. 
(3)  The  Epistle  contemplates  only  heathen  Christians,  while 
the  church  at  Ephesus  was  composed  of  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, 2:  11,  12;  4:  17;  5 : 8.  (4)  To  these  proofs  is  some- 
times added  that  1:15  and  3 : 2  make  it  appear  as  if  Paul 
and  his  readers  were  not  acquainted  with  each  other ;  but 
this  is  not  necessarily  implied  in  these  passages. 

In  all  probability  the  words  sv  'Etpeaoi  were  not  origin- 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS  195 

ally  in  the  text.  But  now  the  question  naturally  arises,  how 
we  must  interpret  the  following  words  xotg  (ZYtot?  toI<; 
ouatv  xat  TCtaxol?  etc.  Several  suggestions  have  been 
made.  Some  would  read :  "The  saints  who  are  really 
such ;"  others :  "the  samts  existing  and  faithful  in  Jesus 
Christ ;"  still  others  :  "the  saints  who  are  also  faithful."  But 
none  of  these  interpretations  is  satisfactory :  the  first  two 
are  hardly  grammatical ;  and  the  last  one  implies  that  there 
are  also  saints  who  are  not  faithful,  and  that  the  Epistle  was 
written  for  a  certain  select  view.  Probably  the  hypothesis 
first  suggested  by  Ussher  is  correct,  that  a  blank  was  origi- 
nally left  after  tot?  oujtv,  and  that  Tychicus  or  someone 
else  was  to  make  several  copies  of  this  Epistle  and  to  fill 
in  the  blank  with  the  name  of  the  church  to  which  each  copy 
was  to  be  sent.  The  fact  that  the  church  of  Ephesus  was 
the  most  prominent  of  the  churches  for  which  it  was  in- 
tended, will  account  for  the  insertion  of  the  words  ev  'E<peff(j) 
in  transcribing  the  letter,  and  for  the  universal  tradition 
regarding  its  destination.  Most  likely,  therefore,  this  was  a 
circular  letter,  sent  to  several  churches  in  Asia,  such  as  those 
of  Ephesus,  Laodicea,  Hierapolis,  e.  a.  Probably  it  is  iden- 
tical with  the  Epistle  iv.  AaoStxta?,  Col.  4:16. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
Epistle  to  indicate  that  it  was  called  forth  by  any  special 
circumstances  in  the  churches  of  Asia.  To  all  appearances 
it  was  merely  the  prospective  departure  of  Tychicus  and 
Onesimus  for  Colossae,  6:  21,  22 ;  Col.  4:  7-9,  combined  with 
the  intelligence  that  Paul  received  as  to  the  faith  of  the 
readers  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  regarding  their  love  to  all 
the  saints,  1  :  15,  that  led  to  its  composition, 

■  Since  the  Epistle  was  not  called  forth  by  any  special 
historical  situation,  the  purpose  of  Paul  in  writing  it  was 
naturally  of  a  general  character.  It  seems  as  if  what  he  had 
heard  of  "the  faith  of  the  readers  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 


196  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

of  their  love  to  all  the  saints,"  involuntarily  fixed  his  thought 
on  the  unity  of  believers  in  Christ,  and  therefore  on  that 
grand  edifice, — the  Church  of  God.  He  sets  forth  the  origin, 
the  development,  the  unity  and  holiness,  and  the  glorious 
end  of  that  mystical  body  of  Christ.  He  pictures  the  trans- 
cendent beauty  of  that  spiritual  temple,  of  which  Christ  is 
the  chief  cornerstone  and  the  saints  form  the  superstructure. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  From  3 :  1  and  4 :  1  we  notice  that 
Paul  was  a  prisoner,  when  he  wrote  this  Epistle.  From  the 
mention  of  Tychicus  as  the  bearer  of  it  in  6:21,  compared 
with  Col.  4:7  and  Philemon  13,  we  may  infer  that  these 
three  letters  were  written  at  the  same  time.  And  it  has 
generally  been  thought  that  they  were  composed  during  the 
Roman  imprisonment  of  Paul.  There  are  a  few  scholars, 
however,  such  as  Reuss  and  Meyer,  who  believe  that  they 
date  from  the  imprisonment  at  Caesarea,  A.  D.  58-60.  Meyer 
urges  this  view  on  the  following  grounds  :  ( 1 )  It  is  more 
natural  and  probable  that  the  slave  Onesimus  had  run  away 
as  far  as  Caesarea  than  that  he  had  made  the  long  journey 
to  Rome.  (2)  If  these  Epistles  had  been  sent  from  Rome, 
Tychicus  and  Onesimus  would  have  arrived  at  Ephesus  first 
and  then  at  Colossse.  But  in  that  case  the  apostle  would 
most  likely  have  mentioned  Onesimus  along  with  Tychicus 
in  Ephesians,  like  he  does  in  Collossians  4:9,  to  insure  the 
runaway  slave  a  good  reception ;  which  was  not  necessary 
however,  if  they  reached  Colossse  first,  as  they  would  in 
coming  from  Caesarea,  since  Onesimus  would  remain  there. 
(3)  In  Eph.  6:21  the  expression,  "But  that  ye  also  may 
know  my  affairs,"  implies  that  there  were  others  who  had 
already  been  informed  of  them,  viz.  the  Collossians,  Col. 
4:8,  9.  (4)  Paul's  request  to  Philemon  in  Philem.  22,  to 
prepare  a  lodging  for  him,  and  that  too,  for  speedy  use, 
favors  the  idea  that  the  apostle  was  much  nearer  Colossae 
than  the  far  distant  Rome.  Moreover  Paul  says  in  Phil. 
2 :  24  that  he  expected  to  proceed  to  Macedonia  after  his 
release  from  the  Roman  imprisonment. 

But  these  arsfuments  are  not  conclusive.    To  the  first  one 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS  197 

we  may  reply  that  Onesimus  would  be  far  safer  from  the 
pursuit  of  the  fugitivarii  in  a  large  city  like  Rome  than  in  a 
smaller  one  such  as  Csesarea.  The  second  argument  loses  its 
force,  if  this  Epistle  was  a  circular  letter,  written  to  the 
Christians  of  Asia  in  general.  The  /.at  in  Eph.  6:21  is 
liable  to  different  interpretations,  but  finds  a  sufficient  ex- 
planation in  the  fact  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  was 
written  first.  And  in  reply  to  the  last  argument  we  would 
say  that  Philem.  22  does  not  speak  of  a  speedy  coming,  and 
that  the  apostle  may  have  intended  to  pass  through  Mace- 
donia to  Colossae. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  following  considerations  favor 
the  idea  that  the  three  Epistles  under  consideration  were 
written  from  Rome :  ( 1 )  From  Eph.  6 :  19,  20  we  infer  that 
Paul  had  sufficient  liberty  during  his  imprisonment  to  preach 
the  gospel.  Now  this  ill  accords  with  what  we  learn  of  the 
imprisonment  at  Csesarea  from  Acts  24 :23,  while  it  perfectly 
agrees  with  the  situation  in  which  Paul  found  himself  at 
Rome  according  to  Acts  28:  16.  (2)  The  many  companions 
of  Paul,  viz.  Tychicus,  Aristarchus,  Marcus,  Justus, 
Epaphras,  Luke  and  Demas,  quite  different  from  those  that 
accompanied  him  on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  (cf.  Acts 
20:4),  also  point  to  Rome,  where  the  apostle  might  utilize 
them  for  evangelistic  work.  Cf.  Phil.  1  :  14.  (3)  In  all 
probability  Philippians  belongs  to  the  same  period  as  the 
other  Epistles  of  the  imprisonment ;  and  if  this  is  the  case, 
the  mention  of  Caesar's  household  in  Phil.  4 :  22  also  points 
to  Rome.  (4)  Tradition  also  names  Rome  as  the  place  of 
composition.  Ephesians  must  probably  be  dated  about  A. 
D.  62. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  early  Church  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  canonicity  of 
this  Epistle.  It  is  possible  that  we  have  the  first  mention  of 
it  in  the  New  Testament  itself,  Col.  4 :  16.  The  writings  of 
Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Herman  and  Hippolytus  contain  pass- 
ages that  seem  to  be  derived  from  our  Epistle.     Marcion, 


198  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

the  Muratorian  Canon,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria 
and  TertuUian  clearly  testify  to  its  early  recognition  and  use. 
There  is  not  a  dissentient  voice  in  all  antiquity. 

The  particular  significance  of  the  Epistle  lies  in  its 
teaching  regarding  the  unity  of  the  Church :  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles are  one  in  Christ.  It  constantly  emphasizes  the  fact 
that  believers  have  their  unity  in  the  Lord  and  therefore 
contains  the  expression  "in  Christ"  about  twenty  times.  The 
unity  of  the  faithful  originates  in  their  election,  since  God 
the  Father  chose  them  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world,  1:4;  it  finds  expression  in  a  holy  conversation, 
sanctified  by  true  love,  that  naturally  results  from  their  liv- 
ing relation  with  Christ,  in  whom  they  are  builded  together 
for  a  habitation  of  God  in  the  Spirit ;  and  it  issues  in  their 
coming  in  the  "unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the 
stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ."  The  great  practical  ex- 
hortation of  the  Epistle  is  that  believers  live  worthily  of 
their  union  with  Christ,  since  they  were  sometime  darkness, 
but  are  now  light  in  the  Lord,  and  should  therefore  walk  as 
children  of  light,  5  :  8. 


The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 


CONTENTS. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Phihppians  we  may  distinguish  five 
parts : 

/.  Paul's  Account  of  his  Condition,  1 :  1-26.  The  apostle 
addresses  the  Philippians  in  the  usual  way,  1,  2;  and  then 
informs  them  of  his  gratitude  for  their  participation  in  the 
work  of  the  Gospel,  of  his  prayer  for  their  increase  in  spirit- 
ual strength  and  labor,  of  the  fact  that  even  his  imprison- 
ment was  instrumental  in  spreading  the  Gospel,  and  of  his 
personal  feelings  and  desires,  3-26. 

//.  His  Exhortation  to  Imitate  Christ,  1 :  27 — 2 :  18.  He 
exhorts  the  Philippians  to  strive  after  unity  by  exercising 
the  necessary  self-denial,  1 :  27 — 2 :  4 ;  points  them  to  the 
pattern  of  Christ,  who  humiliated  himself  and  was  glorified 
by  God,  2:5-11;  and  expresses  his  desire  that  they  follow 
the  example  of  their  Lord,  12-18. 

///.  Information  respecting  Paul's  Efforts  in  behalf  of 
the  Philippians,  2 :  19-30.  He  intends  to  send  Timotheus  to 
them  that  he  may  know  of  their  condition,  and  therefore 
commends  this  worthy  servant  of  Christ  to  them,  19-23 ; 
and  though  he  trusted  that  he  himself  would  come  shortly 
he  now  sends  Epaphroditus  back  to  them,  and  bespeaks  a 
good  reception  for  him,  24-30. 

IV.  Warnings  against  Iiidaeism  and  Antinomian  Error, 
3:1-21.  The  apostle  warns  his  readers  against  Judgeistic 
zealots  that  boasted  in  the  flesh,  pointed  to  his  own  example 
in  renouncing  his  fleshly  prerogatives  that  he  might  gain 
Christ  and  experience  the  power  of  His  resurrection,  and  in 
striving  after  perfection,  1  :15.    By  way  of  contrast  this  in- 


200  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

duces  him  to  warn  them  also  for  the  example  of  those  whose 
lives  are  worldly  and  licentious,  16-21. 

V.  Final  Exhortations  and  Acknozvledgment,  4:1-23. 
He  urges  the  Philippians  to  avoid  all  dissension,  1-3;  ex- 
horts them  to  joyfulness,  freedom  from  care,  and  the  pursuit 
of  all  good  things,  4-9 ;  gratefully  acknowledges  their  gifts, 
invoking  a  blessing  on  their  love,  10-20 ;  and  closes  his 
Epistle  with  salutation  and  benediction,  21-23. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  is  one  of  the  most  per- 
sonal of  Paul's  letters,  resembling  in  that  respect  II  Corin- 
thians. It  has  been  called  the  most  letter-like  of  all  the 
writings  of  Paul,  and  may  be  compared  in  this  respect 
with  I  Thessalonians  and  Philemon.  The  personal 
note  is  very  marked  throughout  the  Epistle.  There  is  not 
much  dogma,  and  what  little  is  found  is  introduced  for  prac- 
tical purposes.  This  holds  true  even  with  reference  to  the 
classical  passage  in  2:6-11.  The  apostle,  with  the  prospect 
of  an  early  martyrdom  before  him,  yet  not  without  hope  of 
a  speedy  release,  opens  his  heart  to  his  most  beloved  congre- 
gation. He  speaks  of  the  blessings  that  attend  his  labors  at 
Rome,  of  the  strait  in  which  he  finds  himself,  and  expresses 
his  desire  to  remain  with  them.  He  manifests  his  love  for 
the  Philippians,  shows  himself  concerned  for  their  spiritual 
welfare,  and  expresses  his  profound  gratitude  for  their  sup- 
port. Though  in  bonds,  he  rejoices,  and  bids  the  readers  be 
joyful.  The  tone  of  joyous  gratitude  rings  through  the  en- 
tire Epistle. 

2.  The  letter  is  in  no  sense  a  controversial  one.  There 
are  in  it  no  direct  polemics ;  there  is  very  little  that  has  to 
any  degree  a  polemical  character.  The  apostle  warns  against 
errorists  that  are  without  the  church,  but  might  disturb  its 
peace,  and  forestalls  their  attacks ;  he  hints  at  dissensions, 
most  likely  of  a  practical  nature,  in  the  congregation,  and 
admonishes  the  readers  to  be  peaceful  and  self-denying ;  but 
he  never  once  assumes  a  polemical  attitude,  like  he  does  in 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS  201 

Corinthians  or  Galatians.  Stronger  still,  the  Epistle  is  singu- 
larly free  from  all  denunciation  and  reproof ;  it  is  written 
throughout  in  a  lauditory  spirit.  The  apostle  finds  Httle  to 
chide  and  much  to  praise  in  the  Philippian  church. 

3.  The  address  of  the  Epistle  is  peculiar  in  that  it  names 
not  only,  "the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi," 
but  adds,  "with  the  bishops  and  deacons."  In  that  respect 
it  stands  in  a  class  by  itself.  The  greetings  at  the  end  of  the 
Epistle  are  also  unique.  On  the  one  hand  they  are  very 
general,  while,  on  the  other,  "the  household  of  Caesar"  is 
singled  out  for  special  mention. 

4.  As  to  style,  Alford  reminds  us,  that  this  letter,  like 
all  those  in  which  Paul  writes  with  fervor,  "is  discontinuous 
and  abrupt,  passing  rapidly  from  one  theme  to  another ;  full 
of  earnest  exhortation,  affectionate  warnings,  deep  and  won- 
derful settings-forth  of  his  individual  spiritual  condition  and 
feelings,  of  the  state  of  the  Christian  and  of  the  sinful 
world,  of  the  loving  councils  of  our  Father  respecting  us, 
and  the  self-sacrifice  and  triumph  of  our  Redeemer."  Pro- 
legomena Sec.  IV.  There  are  constant  expressions  of  affec- 
tion, such  as  dYaTUYjTOt  and  aSsX^ot.  Notice  especially  4:1, 
"Therefore  my  brethren,  my  dearly  beloved  and  longed  for, 
my  joy  and  crown,  so  stand  fast  in  the  Lord,  my  dearly 
beloved." 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  Pauline  authorship  of  this  Epistle  is  established  as 
well  as  anything  can  be.  We  probably  find  the  first  refer- 
ence to  it  in  the  epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  where 
we  read :  "The  glorious  Paul  who,  being  personally  among 
you,  taught  you  exactly  and  surely  the  word  of  truth ;  who 
also,  being  absent,  wrote  you  letters  (or,  a  letter)  which  you 
have  only  to  study  to  be  edified  in  the  faith  that  has  been 
given  you."  The  passage  does  not  necessarily  refer  to  more 
than  one  letter.  Our  Epistle  formed  a  part  of  Marcion's 
collection,  is  mentioned  in  the  Muratorian  canon,  is  found 
in  the  Syriac  and  old   Latin  Versions,  and  is  quoted  by 


202  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 


Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian  and  many 
others. 

And  this  testimony  of  antiquity  is  clearly  borne  out  by 
the  evidence  furnished  by  the  Epistle  itself.  It  is  self- 
attested  and  has,  at  the  beginning,  the  usual  Pauline  blessing 
and  thanksgiving.  Above  all,  however,  it  is  like  II  Corin- 
thians in  that  the  personality  of  the  apostle  is  so  strongly 
stamped  on  it  as  to  leave  little  room  for  doubt.  The  histori- 
cal circumstances  which  the  Epistle  presupposes,  the  type 
of  thought  which  it  contains,  the  language  in  which  it  is 
couched,  and  the  character  which  it  reveals, — it  is  all 
Pauline. 

The  evidence  in  its  favor  is  so  strong  that  its  authenticity 
has  been  generally  admitted,  even  by  radical  critics.  Of 
course,  Baur  and  the  majority  of  his  school  rejected  it,  but 
even  Hilgenfeld,  Jiilicher  and  Pfleiderer  accept  it  as  Pauline. 
The  great  majority  of  New  Testament  scholars  regard  the 
objections  of  Baur  as  frivolous,  as  f.  i.  that  the  mention  of 
bishops  and  deacons  points  to  a  post-Pauline  stage  of  ecclesi- 
astical organization;  that  there  is  no  originality  in  the 
Epistle ;  that  it  contains  evident  traces  of  Gnosticism ;  that 
the  doctrine  of  justification  which  it  sets  forth  is  not  that  of 
Paul ;  and  that  the  Epistle  aims  at  reconciling  the  opposing 
parties  of  the  second  century,  typified  by  Euodia  and 
Syntyche. 

Of  late  Holsten  has  taken  up  the  cudgels  against  the 
genuineness  of  this  letter.  Dismissing  several  of  the  argu- 
ments of  Baur  as  irrelevant,  he  bases  his  attack  especially  on 
the  Christological  and  Soteriological  differences  that  he  dis- 
cerns between  this  Epistle  and  the  other  writings  of  Paul. 
The  most  important  points  to  which  he  refers  are  these :  (1) 
The  idea  of  the  pre-existent  Christ  in  2:6-11  does  not  agree 
with  that  found  in  I  Cor.  15  :  45-49.  According  to  the  first 
passage  the  manhood  of  Christ  begins  with  his  incarnation ; 
according  to  the  second,  He  was  even  in  his  pre-existence 
"a.  heavenly  man."  (2)  There  is  a  glaring  contradiction 
between  3 : 6,  where  the  writer  says  that  he  was  blameless 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS  203 

as  touching  the  righteousness  which  is  in  the  law,  and  Rom. 
7:21,  where  the  apostle  declares:  " —  when  I  would  do 
good,  evil  is  present."  (3)  The  doctrine  of  forensic,  im- 
puted righteousness  is  replaced  by  that  of  an  infused  righte- 
ousness in  3:9-11.  (4)  The  writer  shows  a  singular  indif- 
ference to  the  objective  truth  of  his  Gospel  in  1 :  15-18,  an 
attitude  which  compares  strangely  with  that  of  Paul  in  II 
Cor.  11 :  1-4,  and  especially  in  Gal.  1  : 8,  9. 

But  these  objections  are  not  of  sufficient  weight  to  dis- 
prove the  Pauline  authorship.  In  I  Cor.  15  the  apostle  does 
not  speak  of  the  pre-existent  Christ,  but  of  Christ  as  he  will 
appear  at  the  parousia  in  a  glorified  body.  With  what  Paul 
says  in  3 :  6  we  may  compare  Gal.  1  :  14.  In  both  places  he 
speaks  of  himself  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Jew  who  re- 
gards the  law  merely  as  an  external  carnal  commandment. 
From  that  point  of  view  he  might  consider  himself  blame- 
less, but  it  was  quite  different,  if  he  contemplated  the  law  in 
its  deep  spiritual  sense.  It  is  not  true  that  Paul  substitutes 
an  infused  for  an  imputed  righteousness  in  this  Epistle.  He 
clearly  speaks  of  the  latter  in  2 : 9,  and  then  by  means  of  an 
infinitive  of  purpose  passes  on  to  speak  of  the  subjective 
righteousness  of  life.  The  persons  spoken  of  in  1 :  15-18 
are  not  said  to  preach  a  Gospel  different  from  that  of  the 
apostle ;  they  preached  Christ,  but  from  impure  motives. 
Hence  they  can  not  be  compared  with  the  adversaries  of 
whom  Paul  speaks  in  Corinthians  and  Galatians.  To  these 
he  probably  refers  in  3  :  2.  Schiirer  says  :  "The  arguments 
of  Holsten  are  such  that  one  might  sometimes  believe  them 
due  to  a  slip  of  the  pen." 

THE  CHURCH  AT  PHILIPPI. 

The  city  of  Philippi  was  formerly  called  Crenides,  and 
derived  its  later  name  from  Philip,  the  king  of  Macedonia, 
who  rebuilt  it  and  made  it  a  frontier  city  between  his  king- 
dom and  Thrace.  It  was  situated  on  the  river  Gangites  and 
on  the  important  Egnatian  highway  that  connected  the 
Adriatic   with   the   Hellespont.      After   the   defeat   of   his 


204  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

enemies  Octavius  about  42  B.  C.  determined  on  Philippi 
as  one  of  the  places,  where  Roman  soldiers  who  had  served 
their  time  were  to  dwell.  He  constituted  it  a  Roman  colony, 
with  the  special  privilege  of  the  jus  Italicum,  which  included 
"(1)  exemption  from  the  oversight  of  the  provincial  gover- 
nors; (2)  immunity  from  the  poll  and  property  taxes;  and 
(3)  right  to  property  in  the  soil  regulated  by  Roman  law." 
These  privileges,  no  doubt,  attracted  many  colonists,  so  that 
Philippi  soon  became  a  city  of  considerable  size.  It  is  de- 
scribed in  Acts  16 :  12  as,  "the  chief  city  of  that  part  of 
Macedonia  and  a  colony." 

To  that  city  Paul  first  came,  when  about  the  year  52,  in 
obedience  to  the  vision  of  the  Macedonian  man,  he  passed 
from  Asia  into  Europe.  This  was  in  harmony  with  his  gen- 
eral policy  of  preaching  in  the  main  centers  of  the  Roman 
empire.  Apparently  the  Jews  were  not  numerous  in 
Philippi :  there  was  no  synagogue,  so  that  the  small  band  of 
Jews  and  proselytes  simply  repaired  to  the  river  side  for 
prayer;  and  one  of  the  charges  brought  against  Paul  and 
Silas  was  that  they  were  Jews.  At  the  place  of  prayer  the 
missionaries  addressed  the  assembled  women,  and  were  in- 
strumental in  converting  Lydia  who,  with  characteristic 
generosity,  immediately  received  them  in  her  house.  We 
read  no  more  of  the  blessings  that  crowned  their  labors 
there,  but  find  that  on  their  departure  there  was  a  company 
of  brethren  to  whom  they  spoke  words  of  comfort. 

Little  can  be  said  regarding  the  composition  of  the 
Philippian  church.  In  the  narrative  of  its  founding  we  find 
no  specific  mention  of  Jews,  although  the  assembly  by  the 
river  points  to  their  presence.  However  the  fact  that  there 
was  no  synagogue,  and  that  the  enemies  contemptuously 
emphasized  the  Jewish  nationality  of  the  missionaries  leads 
us  to  think  that  they  were  few  and  greatly  despised.  It  may 
be  that  those  who  did  live  there  had,  under  the  pressure  of 
their  environment,  already  lost  many  of  their  distinctive 
features.  The  presumption  is  that  some  of  them  accepted 
the  teaching  of  Paul  and   Silas,  but  we  cannot  tell  how 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS  205 

large  a  proportion  of  the  church  they  formed.  In  all  proba- 
bility they  were  a  small  minority  and  caused  no  friction  in 
the  congregation.  Paul  does  not  even  refer  to  them  in  his 
letter,  much  less  condemn  their  Jewish  tenets,  like  he  does 
the  errors  of  the  false  brethren  at  Corinth  and  in  the  Gala- 
tian  churches.  The  adversaries  of  whom  he  speaks  in  3 : 2 
were  evidently  outside  of  the  church.  On  the  whole  the 
Philippian  church  was  an  ideal  one,  consisting  of  warm- 
hearted people,  diligent  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  and  faith- 
fully devoted  to  their  apostle. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  The  immediate  occasion  of 
this  Epistle  was  a  contribution  brought  by  Epaphroditus 
from  the  Philippian  church.  They  had  often  sent  the  apostle 
similar  tokens  of  their  love  (cf.  4:  15,  16;  II  Cor.  11:9), 
and  now,  after  they  had  for  some  time  lacked  the  opportun- 
ity to  communicate  with  him,  4:  10,  they  again  ministered 
to  his  wants.  From  over-exertion  in  the  work  of  God's 
Kingdom  their  messenger  was  taken  sick  at  Rome.  On  his 
recovery  Paul  immediately  sends  him  back  to  Philippi,  in 
order  to  allay  all  possible  fears  as  to  his  condition ;  and 
utilizes  this  opportunity  to  send  the  Philippians  a  letter. 

His  purpose  in  writing  this  Epistle  was  evidently  four- 
fold. In  the  first  place  he  desired  to  express  his  gratitude 
for  the  munificence  of  the  Philippians,  especially  because  it 
testified  to  the  abundance  of  their  faith.  In  the  second  place 
he  wished  to  give  utterance  to  his  sincere  love  for  the  Philip- 
pian church  that  constituted  his  crown  in  the  Lord.  In  the 
third  place  he  felt  it  incumbent  on  him  to  warn  them  against 
the  dangers  that  were  present  within  the  fold,  and  the 
enemies  that  were  threatening  them  from  without.  Appar- 
ently there  was  some  dissension  in  the  church,  1 :  27 — 2  :  17; 
4:2,  3,  but,  in  all  probability  this  was  not  of  a  doctrinal 
character,  but  rather  consisted  of  personal  rivalries  and  divi- 
sions among  some  of  the  church  members.  In  3 : 2  the 
apostle  most  likely  referred  to  the  Judseizing  Christians  that 


206  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

traveled  about  to  make  proselytes,  and  also  threatened  the 
church  of  Philippi.  Finally  he  desires  to  exhort  his  most 
beloved  church  to  be  joyful,  notwithstanding  his  imprison- 
ment, and  to  lead  a  truly  Christian  life. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  Like  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
that  to  the  Philippians  was  written  at  Rome.  While  several 
scholars  assign  the  former  to  the  Csesarean  captivity,  very 
few  refer  the  latter  to  that  period.  The  apostle's  evident 
residing  in  some  great  center  of  activity,  the  many  friends 
that  surrounded  him,  his  joyful  expectation  of  being  set  free 
soon,  his  mention  of  the  prsetorium,  1 :  13,  which  may  be  the 
praetorian  guard  (so  most  commentators),  or  the  supreme 
imperial  court  (so  Mommsen  and  Ramsay),  and  the  greet- 
ings of  Caesar's  household, — all  point  to  Rome. 

The  Epistle  was  written,  therefore,  between  the  years 
61-63.  The  only  remaining  question  is,  whether  it  was  com- 
posed before  or  after  the  other  three  Epistles  of  the  captiv- 
ity. The  prevailing  view  is  that  Philippians  is  the  last  of 
the  group.  This  view  is  supported  by  the  following  argu- 
ments :  (1)  The  apostle's  words  in  1 :  12  seem  to  imply  that 
a  long  period  of  imprisonment  has  already  elapsed.  (2)  A 
rather  long  time  was  required  in  the  communications  be- 
tween Rome  and  Philippi  indicated  in  the  letter.  The 
Philippians  had  heard  of  Paul's  imprisonment,  had  sent 
Epaphroditus  to  Rome,  had  heard  of  the  latter's  illness 
there,  and  of  this  their  messenger,  in  turn,  had  received  intel- 
ligence. Four  journeys  are,  therefore,  implied.  (3)  Paul 
anticipates  that  his  case  will  soon  come  up  for  decision,  and 
although  uncertain  as  to  the  outcome,  he  somewhat  expects 
a  speedy  release.  These  arguments  are  not  absolutely  con- 
clusive, but  certainly  create  a  strong  presumption  in  favor 
of  dating  the  Epistle  after  the  other  three. 

Bleek  was  inclined  to  regard  Philippians  as  the  earliest 
of  the  Epistles  of  the  captivity.  This  view  found  a  strong 
defender  in  Lightfoot,  who  is  followed  by  Farrar  in  his  St. 
Paul.  Lightfoot  defends  his  position  by  pointing  to  the 
similarity  of  this  Epistle  to  Romans,  which  implies,  accord- 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS  207 

ing  to  him,  that  it  immediately  follows  this  in  order  of  time ; 
and  to  the  fact  that  in  this  Epistle  we  have  the  last  trace  of 
Paul's  Judaeistic  controversy,  while  in  Ephesians  and  Colos- 
sians  he  begins  to  deal  with  an  incipient  Gnosticism,  and  his 
teachings  respecting  the  Church  bear  a  close  resemblance 
and  are  intimately  related  to  the  views  presented  in  the  pas- 
torals. These  Epistles,  therefore,  represent  a  further 
developmnt  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  But  these  proofs 
do  not  carry  conviction,  since  the  character  of  Paul's 
Epistles  was  not  necessarily  determined  by  the  order  in 
which  they  were  written,  and  the  apostle  did  not  write  as 
one  who  is  presenting  his  system  of  thought  to  the  world  in 
successive  letters.  His  Epistles  were  called  forth  and  deter- 
mined by  special  situations.  And  the  question  may  be  asked, 
whether  it  seems  plausible  that  any  considerable  develop- 
ment of  doctrine  should  take  place  within  the  course  of  at 
most  a  year  and  a  half. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  is  not  quoted  as  much  as 
some  of  the  preceding  ones,  which  is  probably  due  to  the 
fact  that  it  contains  little  doctrinal  matter.  Notwithstand- 
ing this  its  canonicity  is  well  established.  There  are  traces 
of  its  language  in  Clement  of  Rome  and  Ignatius.  Polycarp, 
addressing  the  Philippians,  speaks  more  than  once  of  Paul's 
writing  to  them.  The  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  Justin  Martyr 
and  Theophilus  contain  references  to  our  letter.  In  the 
Epistle  of  the  churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  Phil.  2 :  6  is 
quoted.  Marcion  has  it  and  the  Muratorian  canon  speaks  of 
it.  And  it  is  often  directly  quoted  and  ascribed  to  Paul  by 
Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Tertullian. 

Though  the  Epistle  is  primarily  of  a  practical  nature,  it 
has  also  great  and  abiding  dogmatic  significance.  It  con- 
tains the  classical  passage  on  the  important  doctrine  of  the 
kenosis  of  Christ,  2:6-11.  Aside  from  this,  however,  its 
great  permanent  value  is  of  a  practical  character.  It  reveals 
to  us  the  ideal  relation  between   Paul  and  his   Philippian 


208  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

church,  a  relation  such  as  the  church  of  God  should  con- 
stantly seek  to  realize :  he,  sedulously  seeking  to  promote 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  those  entrusted  to  his  care,  even  in 
a  time  of  dire  distress  ;  and  they,  though  possessing  no  great 
wealth,  willingly  and  lovingly  ministering  to  the  natural 
wants  of  their  beloved  apostle.  It  points  us  to  Christ  as  the 
pattern  of  that  self-denial  and  humiliation  that  should 
always  characterize  his  followers.  It  comes  to  us  with  the 
grand  exhortation,  enforced  by  the  example  of  the  great 
apostle,  to  press  forward  for  "the  prize  of  the  high  calling 
of  God  in  Christ  Jesus."  And  finally  it  pictures  us  the 
Christian  satisfied  and  joyful,  even  when  the  shades  of  night 
are  falling. 


The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians. 


CONTENTS. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  may  best  be  divided  into 
two  parts : 

/.  The  Doctrinal  Part,  emphasizing  the  unique  Signifi- 
cance of  Christ,  1  :  1 — 2 :  23.  Paul  begins  the  letter  with 
the  apostolic  blessing,  the  usual  thanksgiving  and  a  prayer 
for  his  readers,  1  :  1-13.  Then  he  describes  the  pre-eminence 
of  Christ  as  the  Head  of  both  the  natural  and  the  spiritual 
creation,  who  has  reconciled  all  things  to  God,  14-23,  of 
which  mystery  the  apostle  himself  was  made  a  minister, 
24-29.  He  warns  his  readers  against  the  inroads  of  a  false 
philosophy  that  dishonored  Christ.  Since  the  Colossians 
have  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  in  their  Lord  and 
Saviour,  are  rooted  in  him,  and  have  arisen  with  him  to  a 
new  life,  they  should  walk  in  him  and  avoid  semi- Jewish 
practices  and  the  worship  of  angels,  2:  1-19.  This  was  all 
the  more  necessary,  because  they  had  died  with  Christ  to 
their  old  life  and  to  the  beggarly  elements  of  the  world, 
20-23. 

//.  The  Practical  Part,  containing  divers  Directions  and 
Exhortations,  3 :  1 — 4:  18.  Where  believers  have  risen  with 
Christ  to  newness  of  life,  they  must  part  with  the  vices  of 
the  old  man  and  clothe  themselves  with  Christian  virtues, 
3 :  1-17.  Wives  should  submit  themselves  to  their  husbands 
and  husbands  should  love  their  wives ;  children  must  obey 
their  parents  and  parents  must  beware  of  discouraging  their 
children ;  servants  should  obey  their  masters  and  these 
should  give  the  servants  their  due,  18 — 4:  1.  The  duty  of 
prayer  and  thanksgiving  is  urged,  and  directions  are  given 
for  the  right  behavior  of  believers  toward  the  unconverted. 


210 NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

2-6.     With  a  few  personal  notices,  several  greetings  and 
a  salutation  the  apostle  closes  his  Epistle,  7-18. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  On  its  formal  side  this  Epistle  differs  from  that  to 
the  Ephesians  in  its  polemical  character.  It  is  not  a  general 
exposition  of  the  truth  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  without  refer- 
ence to  antagonistic  principles,  but  a  statement  of  it  with  a 
special  view  to  the  errors  that  were  gradually  creeping  into 
the  Colossian  church,  insidious  errors  of  which  the  Colos- 
sians,  so  it  seems,  little  realized  the  danger.  It  is  true  that 
we  find  none  of  the  fiery  polemics  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  here,  nor  any  of  the  sharp  invective  of  II  Corin- 
thians ; — yet  the  controversial  character  of  this  letter  is  very 
evident. 

2.  On  its  material  side  it  exhibits  great  affinity  with  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  Hence  the  contention  of  the  critics 
that  the  one  is  but  a  copy  of  the  other.  We  should  not  infer 
from  this,  however,  that  the  teaching  of  these  Epistles  is 
identical.  While  that  contained  in  Ephesians  is  in  the  main 
Theological,  that  found  in  Colossians  is  primarily  Christolo- 
gical,  the  summing  up  of  all  things  in  Christ,  the  Head. 
Essentially  the  Christology  of  this  letter  is  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  that  of  previous  Epistles,  but  there  is  a  differ- 
ence of  emphasis.  The  writer  here  places  prominently 
before  his  readers,  not  only  the  Soteriological,  but  also  the 
Cosmical  significance  of  Christ.  He  is  the  Head  both  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  new  creation.  All  things  were  created 
by  him,  and  find  the  purpose  of  their  existence  in  him. 

3.  In  point  of  style  and  language  too  this  Epistle  shows 
great  similarity  to  its  twin-letter.  Of  the  155  verses  in 
Ephesians  78  contain  expressions  that  find  parallels  in  Colos- 
sians. There  are  the  same  involved  sentences  of  difficult 
interpretation,  and  also  a  great  number  of  oi'Ka^  Xeyopieva. 
The  letter  contains  34  words  that  are  absent  from  all  the 
other  writings  of  Paul,  12  of  which  are  found  in  other  New 
Testament  books,   however,    (cf.   lists   of   these   words    in 


THE  EPISLTE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS  211 

Alford  and  in  Abbott's  Comm.)  Of  these  34  words  at  least 
18,  and  therefore  more  than  half,  are  found  in  the  second 
chapter.  Owing  to  the  polemical  character  of  this  letter  the 
author  is  generally  speaking  in  a  more  matter-of-fact  man- 
ner than  he  is  in  Ephesians,  and  it  is  only,  when  he  sets 
forth  the  majesty  of  Christ,  that  he  soars  to  sublime 
heights.  Comparing  this  Epistle  with  those  to  the  Corin- 
thians and  the  Philippians,  Lightf  oot  says :  "It  is'  distin- 
guished from  them  by  a  certain  ruggedness  of  expression, 
a  want  of  finish  often  bordering  on  obscurity."  Comm.  p. 
123. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

There  are  no  good  reasons  to  doubt  the  Pauline  author- 
ship of  this  Epistle.  Marcion  and  the  school  of  Valentinus 
recognized  it  as  genuine.  And  the  great  witnesses  of  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria  and 
Tertullian  repeatedly  quote  it  by  name. 

Moreover  the  internal  evidence  decidedly  favors  the 
authenticity  of  the  letter.  It  claims  to  be  written  by  the 
apostle  in  1:1;  the  line  of  thought  developed  in  it  is  dis- 
tinctly Pauline  and  is  in  striking  harmony  with  that  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians ;  and  if  we  do  not  first  rule  out 
several  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  then  compare  the  style  of 
this  letter  with  those  that  remain,  we  may  confidently  assert 
that  the  style  is  Pauline.  Moreover  the  persons  named  in 
4:7-17  are  all,  with  but  a  couple  exceptions  (viz.  Jesus 
called  Justus  and  Nymphas)  known  to  have  been  compan- 
ions or  fellow-laborers  of  Paul. 

Yet  the  Epistle  did  not  go  unchallenged.  Mayerhoflf 
began  the  attack  on  it  is  1838,  rejecting  it,  because  its  vocab- 
ulary, style  and  thought  were  not  Pauline ;  it  was  so  similar 
to  Ephesians ;  and  it  contained  references  to  the  heresy  of 
Cerinthus.  The  school  of  Baur  and  many  other  critics,  such 
as  Hoekstra,  Straatman,  Hausrath,  Davidson,  Schmiedel 
e.  a.,  followed  his  lead  and  considered  this  Epistle  as  a 
second  century  production.  Holtzmann,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  found  a  genuine  nucleus  in  it. 


212  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 


There  are  especially  three  objections  that  are  urged 
against  the  Pauline  authorship  of  this  letter.  ( 1 )  The  style 
is  not  that  of  the  apostle.  The  fact  that  the  letter  contains 
34  axa^  Xeyoixsva;  that  characteristically  Pauline  terms, 
such  as  StxatoauvY],  acaxripia,  aicoicaXutJ/t?  and  xaxapyeiv  are 
absent,  while  some  of  the  particles  often  employed  by 
the  apostle,  as  -(ip,  ouv,  Stoxt  and  apa  are  rarely  found;  and 
that  the  construction  is  often  very  involved  and  character- 
ized by  a  certain  heaviness,  is  urged  against  its  genuineness. 

(2)  The  error  combated  in  this  Epistle,  it  is  said,  shows 
clear  traces  of  second  century  Gnosticism.  These  are  found 
in  the  use  of  the  terms  ao(p(a,  yvwa^i;,  2  :3,  [AuaxiQpiov,  1  :26, 
27;  2:2,  xX-^pwixa,  1  :19,  atwvei;.  1  :26,  etc.;  in  the  series  of 
angels  named  in  1  :  16;  and  in  the  conception  of  Christ  in 
1  :  15.     It  is  held  that  they  point  to  the  Valentinian  system. 

(3)  Closely  related  to  the  preceding  is  the  objection  that  the 
Christology  of  this  Epistle  is  un-Pauline.  Davidson  regards 
this  as  the  chief  feature  that  points  to  the  Gnostics,  Introd. 
I  p.  246,  but  it  is  also  thought  to  conflict  with  the  representa- 
tion of  Paul  in  his  other  writings,  and  to  approach  very 
closely  the  Johannine  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  Christ  is  rep- 
resented as  the  image  of  the  invisible  God.  1:15,  the  central 
Being  of  the  universe,  absolutely  pre-eminent  above  all  visi- 
ble and  invisible  beings,  1 :  16-18,  the  originator  and  the 
goal  of  creation,  and  the  perfect  Mediator,  who  reconciles 
not  only  sinners  but  all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth  to 
God,  1 :  16-20. 

In  answer  to  the  first  objection  we  may  say  that  the 
argument  derived  from  the  aiia^  Xeyoixsva  is  irrelevant  and 
would  apply  with  equal  force  in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans.  From  the  fact  that  more  than  half  of  them  are 
found  in  the  second  chapter  it  is  quite  evident  that  they  are 
due  to  the  special  subject-matter  of  this  letter.  The  differ- 
ence between  Colossians  and  some  of  the  other  Pauline 
writings  also  explains  why  the  characteristically  Pauline 
terms  referred  to  above  are  absent  from  our  Epistle.     Had 


THE  EPISLTE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS  213 

Paul  used  exactly  the  same  words  that  he  employs  else- 
where, that  would  also,  in  all  probability,  have  been  proof 
positive  for  many  critics  that  the  letter  was  a  forgery. 
Moreover  it  should  not  be  regarded  as  very  strange  that  a 
person's  vocabulary  changes  somewhat  in  the  course  of 
time,  especially  not,  when  he  is  placed  in  an  altogether  dif- 
ferent environment,  as  was  the  case  with  Paul.  We  fully 
agree  with  Dr.  Salmon,  when  he  says :  "I  cannot  subscribe 
to  the  doctrine  that  a  man,  writing  a  new  composition,  must 
not,  on  pain  of  losing  his  identity,  employ  any  word  that  he 
has  not  used  in  a  former  one."    Introd.  p.  148. 

As  to  the  second  objection  we  would  reply  that  there  is 
absolutely  no  proof  that  the  Epistle  presupposes  second 
century  Gnosticism.  The  Gnostics  evidently  did  not  regard 
it  as  a  polemic  directed  against  their  tenets,  for  Marcion  and 
the  Valentinians  made  extensive  use  of  it.  Moreover  some 
of  the  most  important  elements  of  Gnosticism,  such  as  the 
creation  of  the  world  by  a  demiurge,  ignorant  of  the 
supreme  God  or  opposed  to  Him,  are  not  referred  to  in 
the  Epistle.  An  incipient  Gnosticism  there  may  have  been  in 
Paul's  time ;  but  it  is  also  possible  that  the  error  of  the 
Colossian  church  is  in  no  way  to  be  identified  with  the  Gnos- 
tic heresy.  Present  day  scholarship  strongly  inclines  to  the 
view  that  it  is  not  Gnosticism  at  all  to  which  Paul  refers  in 
this  letter. 

And  with  respect  to  the  third  argument,  we  do  not  see 
why  the  further  development  of  the  Pauline  Christology 
cannot  have  been  the  work  of  Paul  himself.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  the  Christology  of  this  Epistle  that  conflicts  with  the 
recognized  representation  of  Paul.  We  clearly  find  the 
essence  of  it  in  Rom.  8 :  19-22 ;  I  Cor.  8:6;  II  Cor.  4:4; 
Phil,  2:  5-11.  These  passages  prepare  us  for  the  statement 
of  Paul  regarding  the  Cosmical  significance  of  Christ,  1  :  16, 
17.  And  the  representation  that  all  the  forces  of  creation 
culminate  in  the  glory  of  Christ  does  not  necessarily  run 
counter  to  Rom.  11:36  and  I  Cor,  15:28,  according  to 
which  all  things  exist  to  the  praise  of  God,  their  Creator. 


214  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

THE  CHURCH  AT  COLOSSAE. 

Colossae  was  one  of  the  cities  of  the  beautiful  Lycus 
Valley  in  Phrygia,  situated  but  a  short  distance  from  Laodi- 
cea  and  Hierapolis.  Herodotus  speaks  of  it  as  a  great  city, 
but  it  did  not  retain  its  magnitude  until  New  Testament 
times,  for  Strabo  only  reckons  it  as  a  •;c6Xta[xa.  We  have 
no  information  respecting  the  founding  of  the  Colossian 
church.  From  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  learn  that  Paul 
passed  through  Phrygia  twice,  once  at  the  start  of  his 
second,  and  again  at  the  beginning  of  his  third  missionary 
journey,  Acts  16:  6;  18:  23.  But  on  the  first  of  these  jour- 
neys he  remained  well  to  the  East  of  Western  Phrygia, 
where  Colossae  was  situated ;  and  though  on  the  second  he 
may  have  gone  into  the  Lycus  Valley,  he  certainly  did  not 
find  nor  found  the  Colossian  church  there,  since  he  himself 
says  in  Col.  2 :  1  that  the  Colossians  had  not  seen  his  face  in 
the  flesh.  In  all  probability  Paul's  prolonged  residence  at 
Ephesus  and  his  preaching  there  for  three  years,  so  that  "all 
those  in  Asia  heard  the  word  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  Acts 
19 :  10,  was  indirectly  responsible  for  the  founding  of  the 
churches  in  the  Lycus  Valley.  The  most  plausible  theory  is 
that  Epaphras  was  one  of  Paul's  Ephesian  converts  and  be- 
came the  founder  of  the  Colossian  church.  This  is  favored 
by  1  :7,  where  the  correct  reading  is  /.aOw?  sixaOaxs,  and  not 
y.a6o)q  Y.OH  e[xa6£TS. 

The  church  consisted,  so  it  seems,  of  Gentile  Christians, 
1:21,  27;  2:11-13;  the  Epistle  certainly  does  not  contain 
a  single  hint  that  there  were  Jews  among  them.  Yet  they 
were  clearly  exposed  to  Jewish  influences,  and  this  need  not 
cause  surprise  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Antiochus  the  Great 
transplanted  two  thousand  families  of  Jews  from  Babylonia 
into  Lydia  and  Phrygia,  Jos.  Ant.  XII  6.  4.  This  number 
had.  of  course,  greatly  increased  by  the  time  the  Epistle 
was  written.  Lightfoot  estimates  that  the  number  of  Jewish 
freemen  was  more  than  eleven  thousand  in  the  single  dis- 


THE  EPISLTE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS  215 

trict  of  which  Laodicea  was  the  capital.     Cf.  his  essay  on 
The  Churches  of  the  Lycus  Valley  in  his  Comm.  p.  20. 

According  to  the  Epistle  the  Colossians  were  in  danger 
of  being  misled  by  certain  false  teachings.  As  to  the  exact 
nature  of  the  Colossian  heresy  there  is  a  great  variety  of 
opinion.  Some  regard  it  as  a  mixture  of  Judseistic  and 
theosophic  elements ;  others  dub  it  Gnosticism  or  Gnostic 
Ebionism ;  and  still  others  consider  it  to  be  a  form  of  Essen- 
ism.  We  can  infer  from  the  Epistle  that  the  errorists  were 
members  of  the  congregation,  for  they  are  described  as  those 
"not  holding  the  head,"  2 :  19,  an  expression  that  is  applic- 
able only  to  those  that  had  accepted  Christ.  And  it  seems 
perfectly  clear  that  their  error  was  primarily  of  a  Jewish 
character,  since  they  urged  circumcision,  not,  indeed,  as  an 
absolute  necessity,  but  as  a  means  to  perfection,  2:  10-13; 
they  appealed  to  the  law  and  emphasized  its  ceremonial 
requirements  and  probably  also  the  ordinances  of  the  rabbi's, 
2:  14-17,  20-23.  Yet  they  clearly  went  beyond  the  Judseism 
that  Paul  encountered  in  his  earlier  Epistles,  falsely  empha- 
sizing certain  requirements  of  the  law  and  adjusting  their 
views  to  those  of  their  Gentile  neighbors.  Their  dualistic 
conception  of  the  world  led  them,  on  the  one  hand,  to  an 
asceticism  that  was  not  demanded  by  the  law.  They  re- 
garded it  as  essential  to  abstain  from  the  use  of  meat  and 
wine,  not  because  these  were  Levitically  unclean,  but  since 
this  abstinence  was  necessary  for  the  mortification  of  the 
body,  which  they  regarded  as  the  seat  of  sin.  They  neglected 
the  body  and  apparently  aspired  after  a  pure  spiritual  exist- 
ence ;  to  be  like  the  angels  was  their  ideal.  On  the  other 
hand  the  consciousness  of  their  great  sinfulness  as  material 
beings  made  them  hesitate  to  approach  God  directly.  And 
the  Jewish  doctrine  that  the  law  was  mediated  by  the  angels, 
in  connection  with  the  influence  that  was  ascribed  to  the 
spirits  in  their  heathen  environment,  naturally  led  them  to  a 
worship  of  the  angels  as  intermediaries  between  God  and 
man.  Among  the  higher  spirits  they  also  ranked  Christ  and 
thus  failed  to  recognize  his  unique  significance.    The  Colos- 


216  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

sian  error  was,  therefore,  a  strange  mixture  of  Jewish  doc- 
trines, Christian  ideas  and  heathen  speculation ;  and  this 
composite  character  makes  it  impossible  to  identify  it  with 
any  one  heretical  system  of  the  apostolic  time.  Cf.  espe- 
cially Zahn,  Einl.  I  p.  329  ff . ;  Holtzmann,  Einl.  p.  248  flf. ; 
Lightfoot,  Comm.  pp.  71-111 ;  Biesterveld,  Comm.  pp.  18-28. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  From  the  Epistle  itself  we 
can  readily  infer  what  gave  Paul  occasion  to  write  it. 
Epaphras,  the  founder  and  probably  also  the  minister  of 
the  congregation,  had  evidently  seen  the  danger,  gradually 
increasing,  that  was  threatening  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the 
church.  The  errorists  did  not  directly  antagonize  him  or 
Paul ;  yet  their  teaching  was  a  subversion  of  the  Pauline 
gospel.  Hence  he  informed  the  apostle  of  the  state  of 
affairs,  and  this  information  led  to  the  composition  of  the 
Epistle. 

The  object  Paul  has  in  view  is  the  correction  of  the 
Colossian  heresy.  Hence  he  clearly  sets  forth  the  unique 
significance  of  Christ,  and  the  all-sufficient  character  of  his 
redemption.  Christ  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
Creator  of  the  world,  and  also  of  the  angels,  and  the  only 
Mediator  between  God  and  man.  He  in  whom  all  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead  dwells,  has  reconciled  all  things  to 
God  and  has  delivered  men  from  the  power  of  sin  and 
death.  In  his  death  He  abrogated  the  shadows  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  terminated  the  special  ministry  of  the  angels 
that  was  connected  with  the  law,  so  that  even  this  vestige 
of  a  supposed  Biblical  foundation  for  the  worship  of  angels 
has  been  removed.  In  him  behevers  are  perfect  and  in  him 
only.  Hence  the  Colossians  should  not  fall  back  on  the 
beggarly  elements  of  the  world,  nor  in  sham  humility  wor- 
ship the  angels.  Having  their  life  in  Christ,  they  should 
conform  to  his  image  in  all  their  domestic  and  social  rela- 
tions. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  For  the  discussion  of  these  we  refer 


THE  EPISLTE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS  217 

to  what  we  have  said  in  connection  with  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians.  The  letter  was  written  at  Rome  about  A.  D.  61 
or  62.  Of  course  the  majority  of  those  who  reject  this 
Epistle  date  it  somewhere  in  the  second  century. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  canonical  character  of  this  Epistle  has  never  been 
doubted  by  the  Church.  There  are  slight  but  uncertain 
indications  of  its  use  in  Clement  of  Rome,  Barnabas  and 
Ignatius.  More  important  references  to  it  are  found  in 
Justin  Martyr  and  Theophilus.  Marcion  gave  it  a  place  in 
his  canon,  and  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment  it  is  named  as 
one  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  With  Irenaeus,  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  Tertullian  the  quotations  increase  both  in 
number  and  definiteness.  That  the  Epistle  is  not  quoted  as 
often  as  Ephesians  is  probably  due  to  its  polemical  character. 

The  permanent  value  of  this  letter  is  found  primarily 
in  its  central  teaching,  that  the  Church  of  God  is  made 
perfect  in  Christ,  its  glorious  Head.  Since  He  is  a  perfect 
Mediator  and  the  complete  redemption  of  his  people,  they 
grow  into  him,  as  the  Head  of  the  body,  they  find  the  ful- 
fillment of  all  their  desires  in  him,  as  their  Saviour,  and  they 
reach  their  perfection  in  him,  as  the  Goal  of  the  new  crea- 
tion. His  perfect  life  is  the  life  of  the  entire  Church.  Hence 
believers  should  seek  to  realize  ever  more  in  every  atom  of 
their  existence  the  complete  union  with  their  divine  Head. 
They  should  avoid  all  arbitrary  practices,  all  human  inven- 
tions and  all  will-worship  that  is  derogatory  to  the  only 
Mediator  and  Head  of  the  Church,  Jesus  Christ. 


The  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians. 

CONTENTS. 

In  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  we  distinguish 
two  parts : 

/.  Paul's  Apologia,  1  :  1 — 3:  13.  The  letter  opens  with 
the  usual  apostolic  blessing  and  thanksgiving,  1  :  1-4.  This 
thanksgiving  was  called  forth  by  the  fact  that  the  apostle's 
work  in  Thessalonica  had  not  been  in  vain,  but  had  resulted 
in  a  faith  that  was  spoken  of  throughout  Macedonia  and 
Achaia,  5-10.  The  writer  reminds  the  readers  of  his  labors 
among  them,  emphasizing  his  suffering,  good  moral  be- 
havior, honesty,  faithfulness,  diligence  and  love,  2 :  1-12. 
He  thanks  God  that  they  had  received  him  and  his  message 
and  had  suffered  willingly  for  the  cause  of  Christ  at  the 
hands  of  the  Jews,  and  informs  them  that  he  had  often  in- 
tended to  visit  them,  13-20.  His  great  love  to  them  had 
induced  him  to  send  Timothy  to  establish  them  and  to 
strengthen  them  in  their  affliction,  3 :  1-5 ;  who  had  now  re- 
turned and  gladdened  his  heart  by  a  report  of  their  stead- 
fastness, 6-10.  He  prays  that  the  Lord  may  strengthen 
them,  11-13. 

//.  Practical  Exhortations  and  Instruction  regarding  the 
Parousia,  4 :  1 — 5  :  28.  The  apostle  exhorts  the  Thessalon- 
ians that  they  follow  after  sanctification,  abstaining  from 
fornication  and  fraud,  and  exercising  love,  diligence  and 
honesty,  4:  1-12.  He  allays  their  fears  respecting  the  future 
of  those  that  have  died  in  Christ,  13-8,  and  admonishes 
the  Thessalonians  in  view  of  the  sudden  coming  of  Christ 
to  walk  as  children  of  the  light  that  they  may  be  prepared 
for  the  day  of  Christ's  return,  5 :  1-11.  After  exhorting  the 
brethren  to  honor  their  spiritual  leaders,  and  urging  them  ta 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS  219 

warn  the  unruly,  to  comfort  the  feeble-minded,  to  support 
the  weak,  and  to  practice  all  Christian  virtues,  the  apostle 
closes  his  Epistle  by  invoking  on  the  Thessalonians  the 
blessing  of  God,  by  expressing  his  desire  that  the  Epistle 
be  read  to  all  the  brethren,  and  with  the  usual  salutations, 
12-28. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  This  Epistle  is  like  that  to  the  Philippians  one  of  the 
most  letterlike  of  all  the  writings  of  Paul.  It  is,  as  Deiss- 
mann  says,  "full  of  moving  personal  reminiscences."  The 
practical  interest  greatly  predominates  over  the  doctrinal : 
and  though  the  polemical  element  is  not  altogether  absent, 
it  is  not  at  all  prominent.  The  letter  is  primarily  one  of 
practical  guidance,  instruction  and  encouragement,  for  a 
faithful,  persecuted  church,  whose  knowledge  is  still  defi- 
cient, and  whose  weak  and  faint-hearted  and  idlers  greatly 
need  the  counsel  of  the  apostle. 

2.  Doctrinally  I  Thessalonians  is  one  of  the  eschato- 
logical  Epistles  of  Paul.  It  refers  very  little  to  Christ's 
coming  in  the  flesh  to  give  himself  a  ransom  for  sin,  but 
discusses  all  the  more  Tiis  future  coming  as  the  Lord  of 
Glory.  There  are  at  least  six  references  to  the  parousia  in 
this  short  letter,  two  of  which  are  rather  extensive  passages, 
1:10;  2:19;  3:13;  4:13-18;  5:1-11,  23.  This  doctrine  is 
at  once  the  impelling  motive  for  the  exhortations  of  the 
apostle,  and  the  sufficient  ground  for  the  encouragement  of 
his  readers,  who  expected  the  return  of  Christ  in  the  near 
future. 

3.  The  Epistle  never  appeals  to  the  Old  Testament  as 
an  authority,  and  contains  no  quotations  from  it.  We  find 
a  reference  to  its  history,  however,  in  2:  15,  and  probable 
reminiscences  of  its  language  in  2:  16;  4:5,  6,  8,  9;  5:8. 
The  language  of  4:  15-17  shows  some  similarity  to  II  Esdras 
5  :  42,  but  the  thought  is  quite  different. 

4.  The  style  of  this  letter  is  thoroughly  Pauline,  con- 
taining an  abundance  of  phrases  and  expressions  that  have 


220  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

parallels  in  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul,  especially  in  those  to 
the  Corinthians.  Comparing  it  with  the  other  polemical 
writings  of  the  apostle,  we  find  that  it  is  written  in  a  quiet 
unimpassioned  style,  a  style,  too,  far  more  simple  and  direct 
than  that  of  Ephesians  and  Colossians.  There  are  42  words 
peculiar  to  it,  of  which  22  are  not  found  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  20  are,  but  not  in  the  writings  of  Paul. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  external  testimony  in  favor  of  the  Pauline  author- 
ship is  in  no  way  deficient.  Marcion  included  the  letter  in 
his  canon,  and  the  Muratorian  Fragment  mentions  it  as  one 
of  the  Pauline  writings.  It  is  contained  in  the  old  Latin  and 
Syriac  Versions ;  and  from  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  Tertullian  it  is  regularly  quoted  by  name. 

The  internal  evidence  also  clearly  points  to  Paul  as  the 
writer.  The  Epistle  comes  to  us  under  the  name  of  Paul ; 
and  those  that  were  associated  with  him  in  writing  it,  viz. 
Silvanus  (Silas)  and  Timotheus,  are  known  to  have  been 
Paul's  companions  on  the  second  missionary  journey.  It  is 
marked  by  the  usual  Pauline  blessing,  thanksgiving  and  salu- 
tation, and  clearly  reflects  the  character  of  the  great  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles.  Although  it  has  been  subject  to  attack,  it 
is  now  defended  by  critics  of  nearly  every  school  as  an 
authentic  production  of  Paul. 

Schrader  and  Baur  were  the  first  ones  to  attack  it  in 
1835.  The  great  majority  of  critics,  even  those  of  Baur's 
own  school,  turned  against  them ;  such  men  as  Hilgenfeld. 
Pfleiderer,  Holtzmann,  Davidson,  Von  Soden  and  Jiilicher 
defending  the  genuineness  of  the  letter.  They  found  fol- 
lowers, however,  especially  in  Holsten  and  Van  der  Vies. 

Of  the  objections  brought  against  the  Epistle  the  follow- 
ing deserve  consideration  :  ( 1 )  As  compared  with  the  other 
writings  of  Paul,  the  contents  of  this  Epistle  are  very  insig- 
nificant, not  a  single  doctrine,  except  that  in  4:  13-18,  being 
made  prominent.  In  the  main  it  is  but  a  reiteration  of  Paul's 
work  among  the  Thessalonians,  and  of  the  circumstances 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS  221 

attending  their  conversion,  all  of  which  they  knew  very  well. 
(2)  The  letter  reveals  a  progress  in  the  Christian  life  that  is 
altogether  improbable,  if  a  period  of  only  a  few  months  had 
elapsed  between  its  composition  and  the  founding  of  the 
church,  cf.  1:7,  8;  4:  10.  (3)  The  passage  2:  14-16  does 
not  fit  in  the  mouth  of  him  who  wrote  Rom.  9 — 11  and  who 
was  himself  at  one  time  a  fierce  persecutor  of  the  Church. 
Moreover  it  impHes  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was 
already  a  thing  of  the  past.  (4)  The  Epistle  is  clearly 
dependent  on  some  of  the  other  Pauline  writings,  especially 
I  and  II  Corinthians.  Compare  1 :  5  with  I  Cor.  2:4; — 
1 :  6  with  I  Cor.  11 :  1  ;— 2 :  4  fif.  with  I  Cor.  2  :  4  ;  4 :  3  ff. ; 
9:15  ff.;  II  Cor.  2:17;  5:11. 

The  cogency  of  these  arguments  is  not  apparent.  Paul's 
letters  have  an  occasional  character,  and  the  situation  at 
Thessalonica  did  not  call  for  an  exposition  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, save  a  deliverance  on  the  parousia ;  but  did  require 
words  of  encouragement,  guidance  and  exhortation,  and 
also,  in  view  of  the  insinuations  against  the  apostle,  a  care- 
ful review  of  all  that  he  had  done  among  them.  Looked  at 
from  that  point  of  view  the  Epistle  is  in  no  sense  insignifi- 
cant. The  words  of  1 :  7,  8  and  4 :  10  do  not  imply  a  long  ex- 
istence of  the  Thessalonian  church,  but  simply  prove  the  in- 
tensity of  its  faith  and  love.  Three  or  four  months  were 
quite  sufficient  for  the  report  of  their  great  faith  to  spread 
in  Macedonia  and  Achaia.  Moreover  the  very  shortcomings 
of  the  Thessalonians  imply  that  their  religious  experience 
was  as  yet  of  but  short  duration.  In  view  of  what  Paul 
writes  in  II  Corinthians  and  Galatians  respecting  the  Judse- 
izers,  we  certainly  need  not  be  surprised  at  what  he  says  in 
2 :  14-16.  If  the  words  are  severe,  let  us  remember  that  they 
were  called  forth  by  a  bitter  and  dogged  opposition  that  fol- 
lowed the  apostle  from  place  to  place,  and  on  which  he  had 
brooded  for  some  time.  The  last  words  of  this  passage  do 
not  necessarily  imply  that  Jerusalem  had  already  been  de- 
stroyed. They  are  perfectly  intelligible  on  the  supposition 
that  Paul,  in  view  of  the  wickedness  of  the  Jews  and  of  the 


222  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

calamities  that  were  already  overtaking  them,  Jos.  Ant.  XX 
2,  5,  6,  had  a  lively  presentiment  of  their  impending  doom. 
The  last  argument  is  a  very  peculiar  one.  It  is  tantamount 
to  saying  that  the  Epistle  cannot  be  Pauline,  because  there 
are  so  many  Pauline  phrases  and  expressions  in  it.  Such 
an  argument  is  its  own  refutation,  and  is  neutralized  by  the 
fact  that  in  the  case  of  other  letters  dissimilarity  leads  the 
critics  to  the  same  conclusion. 

THE  CHURCH  AT  THESSALONICA. 

Thessalonica,  originally  called  Thermae  (Herodotus), 
and  now  bearing  the  slightly  altered  name  Saloniki,  a  city  of 
Macedonia,  has  always  been  very  prominent  in  history  and 
still  ranks,  after  Constantinople,  as  the  second  town  in  Euro- 
pean Turkey.  It  is  situated  on  what  was  formerly  known  as 
the  Thermaic  gulf,  and  is  built  "in  the  form  of  an  amphi- 
theater on  the  slopes  at  the  head  of  the  bay."  The  great 
Egnatian  highway  passed  through  it  from  East  to  West. 
Hence  it  was  of  old  an  important  trade  center  and  as  such 
had  special  attraction  for  the  Jews,  who  were  found  there  in 
great  numbers.  Cassander,  who  rebuilt  the  city  in  315  B.  C. 
in  all  probability  gave  it  the  name  Thessalonica  in  honor  of 
his  wife.  In  the  time  of  the  Romans  it  was  the  capital  of 
the  second  part  of  Macedonia  and  the  seat  of  the  Roman 
governor  of  the  entire  province. 

Paul,  accompanied  by  Silas  and  Timothy,  came  to  that 
city,  after  they  had  left  Philippi  about  the  year  52.  As  was 
his  custom,  he  repaired  to  the  synagogue  to  preach  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  result  of  this  work  was  a 
spiritual  harvest  consisting  of  some  Jews,  a  great  number  of 
proselytes  (taking  the  word  in  its  widest  significance)  and 
several  of  the  city's  chief  women.  From  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  we  get  the  impression  (though  it  is  not  definitely 
stated)  that  Paul's  labors  at  Thessalonica  terminated  at  the 
end  of  three  weeks ;  but  the  Epistles  rather  favor  the  idea 
that  his  stay  there  was  of  longer  duration.  They  pre-sup- 
pose  a  flourishing,  well  organized  congregation,  5  :  12,  whose 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS  223 

faith  had  become  a  matter  of  common  comment,  1 :  7-9 ;  and 
show  us  that  Paul,  while  he  was  in  Thessalonica,  worked  for 
his  daily  bread,  2:9;  II  Thess.  3:8,  and  received  aid  at 
least  twice  from  the  Philippians,  Phil.  4:  16. 

His  fruitful  labor  was  cut  short,  however,  by  the  malign 
influence  of  envious  Jews,  who  attacked  the  house  of  Jason, 
where  they  expected  to  find  the  missionaries,  and  failing  in 
this,  they  drew  Jason  and  some  of  the  brethren  before  the 
rulers,  TroXtiapxa?  (a  name  found  only  in  Acts  17:6,  8,  but 
proved  absolutely  correct  by  inscriptions,  cf.  Ramsey,  St. 
Paul  the  Traveler  and  the  Roman  Citizen  p.  227)  and 
charged  them  with  treason.  "The  step  taken  by  the  polit- 
archs  was  the  mildest  that  was  prudent  in  the  circumstances  ; 
they  bound  the  accused  over  in  security  that  peace  should  be 
kept."  (Ramsay)  As  a  result  the  brethren  deemed  it  advis- 
able to  send  Paul  and  his  companions  to  Berea,  where  many 
accepted  the  truth,  but  their  labors  were  again  interrupted 
by  the  Jews  from  Thessalonica.  Leaving  Silas  and  Timothy 
here,  the  apostle  went  to  Athens,  where  he  expected  them 
to  join  him  shortly.  From  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  it 
seems  that  they  did  not  come  to  the  apostle  until  after  his 
arrival  at  Corinth,  but  I  Thess.  3 :  1  implies  that  Timothy 
was  with  him  at  Athens.  The  most  natural  theory  is  that 
both  soon  followed  the  apostle  to  Athens,  and  that  he  sent 
Timothy  from  there  to  Thessalonica  to  establish  and  com- 
fort the  church,  and  Silas  on  some  other  mission,  possibly 
to  Philippi,  both  returning  to  him  at  Corinth. 

From  the  data  in  Acts  17:4  and  I  Thess.  1 : 9 ;  2 :  14  we 
may  infer  that  the  church  of  Thessalonica  was  of  a  mixed 
character,  consisting  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians.  Since 
no  reference  is  made  in  the  Epistles  to  the  tenets  of  the  Jews 
and  not  a  single  Old  Testament  passage  is  quoted,  it  is  all 
but  certain  that  its  members  were  mostly  Christians  of  the 
Gentiles.  Only  three  of  them  are  known  to  us  from  Scrip- 
ture, viz.  Jason,  Acts  17 : 5-9,  and  Aristarchus  and  Secundus, 
Acts  20 :  4.  The  congregation  was  not  wealthy,  II  Cor.  8 :  2, 
3 ;  with  the  exception  of  a  few  women  of  the  better  class. 


224  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

it  seems  to  have  consisted  chiefly  of  laboring  people  that  had 
to  work  for  their  daily  bread,  4  :  11 ;  II  Thess.  3  :  6-12.  They 
had  not  yet  parted  company  with  all  their  old  vices,  for  there 
was  still  found  among  them  fornication  4 :  3-5,  fraud  4 : 6 
and  idleness  4:11.  Yet  they  were  zealous  in  the  work  of 
the  Lord  and  formed  one  of  the  most  beloved  churches  of 
the  apostle. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  What  led  Paul  to  write  this 
letter,  was  undoubtedly  the  report  Timothy  brought  him  re- 
specting the  condition  of  the  Thessalonian  church.  The 
apostle  felt  that  he  had  been  torn  away  from  them  all  too 
soon  and  had  not  had  sufficient  time  to  establish  them  in 
the  truth.  Hence  he  was  greatly  concerned  about  their 
spiritual  welfare  after  his  forced  departure.  The  coming  of 
Timothy  brought  him  some  relief,  for  he  learnt  from  that 
fellow-laborer  that  the  church,  though  persecuted,  did  not 
waver,  and  that  their  faith  had  become  an  example  to  many. 
Yet  he  was  not  entirely  at  ease,  since  he  also  heard  that  the 
Jews  were  insinuating  that  his  moral  conduct  left  a  great 
deal  to  be  desired,  while  he  had  misled  the  Thessalonians  for 
temporal  gain  and  vainglory,  2:3-10;  that  some  heathen 
vices  were  still  prevalent  in  the  church ;  and  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  parousia  had  been  misconstrued,  giving  some 
occasion  to  cease  their  daily  labors,  and  others,  to  feel  con- 
cerned about  the  future  condition  of  those  who  had  recently 
died  in  their  midst.  That  information  led  to  the  composition 
of  our  Epistle. 

In  view  of  all  these  things  it  was  but  natural  that  the 
apostle  should  have  a  threefold  purpose  in  writing  this  let- 
ter. In  the  first  place  he  desired  to  express  his  gratitude  for 
the  faithful  perseverance  of  the  Thessalonians.  In  the  sec- 
ond place  he  sought  to  establish  them  in  faith,  which  was  all 
the  more  necessary,  since  the  enemy  had  sown  tares  among 
the  wheat.  Hence  he  reminds  them  of  his  work  among 
them,  pointing  out  that  his  conversation  among  them  was 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS  225 

above  reproach,  and  that  as  a  true  apostle  he  had  labored 
among  them  without  covetousness  and  vainglory.  And  in 
the  third  place  he  aimed  at  correcting  their  conception  of 
the  Lord's  return,  emphasizing  its  importance  as  a  motive 
for  sanctification, 

2.  Time  and  Place.  There  is  little  uncertainty  as  to  the 
time  and  place  of  composition,  except  in  the  ranks  of  those 
who  regard  the  Epistle  as  a  forgery.  When  Paul  wrote  this 
letter,  the  memory  of  his  visit  to  Thessalonica  was  still  vivid, 
chs.  1  and  2 ;  and  he  was  evidently  in  some  central  place, 
where  he  could  keep  posted  on  the  state  of  affairs  in  Mace- 
donia and  Achaia,  1:7,  8,  and  from  where  he  could  easily 
communicate  with  the  Thessalonian  church.  Moreover 
Silas  and  Timothy  were  with  him,  of  which  the  former  at- 
tended the  apostle  only  on  his  second  missionary  journey, 
and  the  latter  could  not  bring  him  a  report  of  conditions 
at  Thessalonica,  until  he  returned  to  the  apostle  at  Corinth, 
Acts  18:5.  Therefore  the  Epistle  was  written  during  Paul's 
stay  in  that  city.  However  it  should  not  be  dated  at  the 
beginning  of  Paul's  Corinthian  residence,  since  the  faith  of 
the  Thessalonians  had  already  become  manifest  throughout 
Macedonia  and  Achaia,  and  some  deaths  had  occurred  in 
the  church  of  Thessalonica.  Neither  can  we  place  it  toward 
the  end  of  that  period,  for  II  Thessalonians  was  also  written 
before  the  apostle  left  Corinth.  Most  likely  it  was  composed 
towards  the  end  of  A.  D.  52. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  canonicity  of  this  Epistle  was  never  questioned  in 
ancient  times.  There  are  some  supposed  references  to  it 
in  the  apostolic  fathers,  Clement  of  Rome,  Barnabas,  Igna- 
tius and  Polycarp,  but  they  are  very  uncertain.  Marcion 
and  the  Muratorian  Fragment  and  the  old  Latin  and  Syriac 
Versions  testify  to  its  canonicity,  however,  and  from  the  end 
of  the  second  century  its  canonical  use  is  a  well  established 
fact. 

In  this  letter  we  behold  Paul,  the  missionary,  in  the  ab- 


226  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

sence  of  any  direct  controversy,  carefully  guarding  the  in- 
terest of  one  of  his  most  beloved  churches,  comforting  and 
encouraging  her  like  a  father.  He  strengthens  the  heart  of 
his  persecuted  spiritual  children  with  the  hope  of  Christ's 
return,  w^hen  the  persecutors  shall  be  punished  for  their  evil 
work,  and  the  persecuted  saints,  both  the  dead  and  the 
living,  shall  receive  their  eternal  reward  in  the  Kingdom  of 
their  heavenly  Lord.  And  thus  the  apostle  is  an  example 
worthy  of  imitation ;  his  lesson  is  a  lesson  of  permanent 
value.  The  glorious  parousia  of  Christ  is  the  cheering  hope 
of  the  militant  church  in  all  her  struggles  to  the  end  of  time. 


The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians. 


CONTENTS. 

The  contents  of  the  letter  naturally  falls  into  three  parts : 

/.  Introduction,  ch.  1.  The  apostle  begins  his  letter 
with  the  regular  blessing,  1,  2.  He  thanks  God  for  the  in- 
creasing faith  and  patience  of  the  Thessalonians,  reminding 
them  of  the  fact  that  in  the  day  of  Christ's  coming  God  will 
provide  rest  for  his  persecuted  church  and  will  punish  her 
persecutors ;  and  prays  that  God  may  fulfil  his  good  pleas- 
ure in  them  to  the  glory  of  his  Name,  3 — 12. 

//.  Instruction  respecting  the  Parousia,  ch.  2.  The 
church  is  warned  against  deception  regarding  the  imminence 
of  the  great  day  of  Christ  and  is  informed  that  it  will  not 
come  until  the  mystery  of  iniquity  has  resulted  in  the  great 
apostacy,  and  the  man  of  sin  has  been  revealed  whose  com- 
ing is  after  the  work  of  satan,  and  who  will  utterly  deceive 
men  to  their  own  destruction,  1 — 12.  The  Thessalonians 
need  not  fear  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  since  they  were 
chosen  and  called  to  everlasting  glory ;  and  it  is  the  apostle's 
wish  that  the  Lord  may  comfort  their  hearts  and  establish 
them  in  all  good  work,  13 — 17. 

///.  Practical  Exhortations,  ch.  3.  The  writer  requests 
the  prayer  of  the  church  for  himself  that  he  may  be  de- 
livered from  unreasonable  and  wicked  men,  and  exhorts 
her  to  do  what  he  commanded,  1 — 5.  They  should  with- 
draw from  those  who  are  disorderly  and  do  not  work,  be- 
cause each  one  should  labor  for  his  daily  bread  and  thus 
follow  the  example  of  the  apostle,  6 — 12.  Those  who  do 
not  heed  the  apostolic  word  should  be  censured,  13 — 15. 
With  a  blessing  and  a  salutation  the  apostle  closes  his  let- 
ter, 16—18. 


228  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  The  main  characteristic  of  this  letter  is  found  in  the 
apocalyptic  passage,  2:  1-12.  In  these  verses,  that  contain 
the  most  essential  part  of  the  Epistle,  Paul  speaks  as  a 
prophet,  revealing  to  his  beloved  church  that  the  return  of 
Christ  will  be  preceded  by  a  great  final  apostacy  and  by  the 
revelation  of  the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition  who,  as 
the  instrument  of  satan,  will  deceive  men,  so  that  they  ac- 
cept the  lie  and  are  condemned  in  the  great  day  of  Christ. 
II  Thessalonians,  no  doubt,  was  written  primarily  for  the 
sake  of  this  instruction. 

2.  Aside  from  this  important  doctrinal  passage  the 
Epistle  has  a  personal  and  practical  character.  It  contains 
expressions  of  gratitude  for  the  faith  and  endurance  of  the 
persecuted  church,  words  of  encouragement  for  the  afflicted, 
fatherly  advice  for  the  spiritual  children  of  the  apostle,  and 
directions  as  to  their  proper  behavior. 

3.  The  style  of  this  letter,  like  that  of  I  Thessalonians, 
is  simple  and  direct,  except  in  2:  1-12,  where  the  tone  is 
more  elevated.  This  change  is  accounted  for  by  the  pro- 
phetic contents  of  that  passage.  The  language  clearly  re- 
veals the  working  of  the  vigorous  mind  of  Paul,  who  in  the 
expression  of  his  thoughts  was  not  limited  to  a  few  stock 
phrases.  Besides  the  many  expressions  that  are  character- 
istically Pauline  the  Epistle  contains  several  that  are  peculiar 
to  it,  and  also  a  goodly  number  which  it  has  in  common  only 
with  I  Thessalonians.  Of  the  26  axa^  Xsyofxeva  in  the 
letter  10  are  not  found  in  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  16  are  used  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  but  not  in 
the  writings  of  Paul. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  external  testimony  for  the  authenticity  of  this 
Epistle  is  just  as  strong  as  that  for  the  genuineness  of  the 
first  letter.  Marcion  has  it  in  his  canon,  the  Muratorian 
Fragment  names  it,  and  it  is  also  found  in  the  old  Latin  and 
Syriac  Versions.    From  the  time  of  Irenaeus  it  is  regularly 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS        229 

quoted  as  a  letter  of  Paul,  and  Origen  and  Eusebius  claim 
that  it  was  universally  received  in  their  time. 

The  Epistle  itself  claims  to  be  the  work  of  Paul,  1:1; 
and  again  in  3:  17,  where  the  apostle  calls  attention  to  the 
salutation  as  a  mark  of  genuineness.  The  persons  associated 
with  the  writer  in  the  composition  of  this  letter  are  the  same 
as  those  mentioned  in  I  Thessalonians.  As  in  the  majority 
of  Paul's  letters  the  apostolic  blessing  is  followed  by  a 
thanksgiving.  The  Epistle  is  very  similar  to  I  Thessalonians 
and  contains  some  cross-references  to  it,  as  f.  i.  in  the  case 
of  the  parousia  and  of  the  idlers.  It  clearly  reveals  the  char- 
acter of  the  great  apostle,  and  its  style  may  confidently  be 
termed  Pauline. 

Nevertheless  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  has  been 
doubted  far  more  than  that  of  I  Thessalonians.  Schmidt 
was  the  first  one  to  assail  it  in  1804 ;  in  this  he  was  followed 
by  Schrader,  Mayerhof  and  De  Wette,  who  afterwards 
changed  his  mind,  however.  The  attack  was  renewed  by 
Kern  and  Baur  in  whose  school  the  rejection  of  the  Epistle 
became  general.  Its  authenticity  is  defended  by  Reuss, 
Sabatier,  Hofmann,  Weiss,  Zahn,  Jiilicher,  Farrar,  Godet, 
Baljon,  Mofifat  e.  a. 

The  principal  objections  urged  against  the  genuineness 
of  this  letter  are  the  following :  ( 1 )  The  teaching  of  Paul 
regarding  the  parousia  in  2 :  1-12  is  not  consistent  with  what 
he  wrote  in  I  Thessalonians  4:  13-18;  5:  1-11.  According 
to  the  first  letter  the  day  of  Christ  is  imminent  and  will 
come  suddenly  and  unexpectedly  ;  the  second  emphasizes  the 
fact  that  it  is  not  close  at  hand  and  that  several  signs  will 
precede  it.  (2)  The  eschatology  of  this  passage  2:  1-12  is 
not  Paul's  but  clearly  dates  from  a  later  time  and  was  prob- 
ably borrowed  from  the  Revelation  of  John.  Some  identify 
the  man  of  sin  with  Nero  who,  though  reported  dead,  was 
supposed  to  be  hiding  in  the  East  and  was  expected  to  re- 
turn ;  and  find  the  one  still  restraining  the  evil  in  Vespasian. 
Others  hold  that  this  passage  clearly  refers  to  the  time  of 
Trajan,  when  the  mystery  of  iniquity  was  seen  in  the  ad- 


230  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

vancing  tide  of  Gnosticism.  (3)  This  letter  is  to  a  great 
extent  but  a  repitition  of  I  Thessalonians,  and  therefore 
looks  more  like  the  work  of  a  forger  than  like  a  genuine 
production  of  Paul.  Holtzmann  says  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  1:5,  6,  9,  12;  2:2-9,  11,  12,  15;  3:2,  13,  14,  17,  the 
entire  Epistle  consists  of  a  reproduction  of  parallel  passages 
from  the  first  letter.  Einl.  p.  214.  (4)  The  Epistle  con- 
tains a  conspicuously  large  number  of  peculiar  expressions 
that  are  not  found  in  the  rest  of  Paul's  writings,  nor  in  the 
entire  New  Testament.  Cf.  lists  in  Frame's  Comm.  pp.  28- 
34,  in  the  Intern.  Crit.  Comm.  (5)  The  salutation  in  3:  17 
has  a  suspicious  look.  It  seems  like  the  attempt  of  a  later 
writer  to  ward  off  objections  and  to  attest  the  Pauline 
authorship. 

But  the  objections  raised  are  not  sufficient  to  discredit 
the  authenticity  of  our  Epistle.  The  contradictions  in  Paul's 
teaching  regarding  the  parousia  of  Christ,  are  more  apparent 
than  real.  The  signs  that  precede  the  great  day  will  not  de- 
tract from  its  suddenness  any  more  than  the  signs  of  Noah's 
time  prevented  the  flood  from  taking  his  contemporaries  by 
surprise.  Moreover  these  two  features,  the  suddenness  of 
Christ's  appearance  and  the  portentous  facts  that  are  the 
harbingers  of  his  coming,  always  go  hand  in  hand  in  the 
eschatological  teachings  of  Scripture.  Dan.  1 1 :  1 — 12 :  3  ; 
Mt.  24 : 1-44 ;  Lk.  17 : 20-37.  As  to  the  immediacy  of  Christ's 
coming  we  can  at  most  say  that  the  first  Epistle  intimates 
that  the  Lord  might  appear  during  that  generation  (though 
possibly  it  does  not  even  imply  that),  but  it  certainly  does 
not  teach  that  Christ  will  presently  come. 

The  eschatology  of  the  second  chapter  has  given  rise  to 
much  discussion  and  speculation  regarding  the  date  and 
authorship  of  the  Epistle,  but  recent  investigations  into  the 
conditions  of  the  early  church  have  clearly  brought  out  that 
the  contents  of  this  chapter  in  no  way  militate  against  the 
genuineness  of  the  letter.  Hence  they  who  deny  the  Pauline 
authorship  have  ceased  to  place  great  reliance  on  it.  There 
is  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  Paul  wrote  the 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS        231 

passage  regarding  the  man  of  sin.  We  find  similar  repre- 
sentations as  early  as  the  time  of  Daniel  (cf.  Dan.  11),  in 
the  pseudepigraphic  literature  of  the  Jews  (cf.  Schiirer, 
Geschichte  des  Judischen  Volkes  II  p.  621  f.),  and  in  the 
eschatological  discourses  of  the  Lord.  The  words  and  ex- 
pressions found  in  this  chapter  are  very  well  susceptible  of 
an  interpretation  that  does  not  necessitate  our  dating  the 
Epistle  after  the  time  of  Paul.  We  cannot  delay  to  review 
all  the  preterist  and  futurist  expositions  that  have  been  given 
(for  which  cf.  Alford,  Prolegomena  Section  V),  but  can 
only  indicate  in  a  general  way  in  what  direction  we  must 
look  for  the  interpretation  of  this  difficult  passage.  In  in- 
terpreting it  we  should  continually  bear  in  mind  its  prophetic 
import  and  its  reference  to  something  that  is  still  future. 
No  doubt,  there  were  in  history  prefigurations  of  the  great 
day  of  Christ  in  which  this  prophecy  found  a  partial  fulfil- 
ment, but  the  parousia  of  which  Paul  speaks  in  these  verses 
is  even  now  only  a  matter  of  faithful  expectation.  The  his- 
tory of  the  world  is  gradually  leading  up  to  it.  Paul  was 
witnessing  some  apostacy  in  his  day,  the  [xuaxi^ptov  tiq? 
avo[i(a<;  was  already  working,  but  the  great  apostacy 
(t)  dTtOUTaat'a)  could  not  come  in  his  day,  because  there  had 
been  as  yet  but  a  very  partial  dissemination  of  the  truth ;  and 
will  not  come  until  the  days  immediately  preceding  the 
second  coming  of  Christ,  when  the  mystery  of  godlessness 
will  complete  itself,  and  will  finally  be  embodied  in  a  single 
person,  in  the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition,  who  will  then 
develop  into  a  power  antagonistic  to  Christ  (anti-christ, 
0  ovTiy.ec'iJL^'^oi;),  yea  to  every  form  of  religion,  the  very  in- 
carnation of  satan.  Cf.  vs.  9.  This  can  only  come  to  pass, 
however,  after  the  restraining  power  is  taken  out  of  the  way, 
a  power  that  is  at  once  impersonal  (v-aziyow)  and  personal 
(xaxexwv),  and  which  may  refer  first  of  all  to  the  strict 
administration  of  justice  in  the  Roman  empire  and  to  the 
emperor  as  the  chief  executive,  but  certainly  has  a  wider 
signification  and  probably  refers  in  general  to  "the  fabric  of 


232  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

human  polity  and  those  who  rule  that  polity."  (Alford). 
For  a  more  detailed  exposition  cf.  especially,  Alford,  Pro- 
legomena Section  V ;  Zahn,  Einleitung  I  p.  162  ff. ;  Godet, 
Introduction  p  .171  ft'. ;  and  Eadie,  Essay  on  the  Man  of  Sin 
in  Comm.  p.  329  ft. 

We  fail  to  see  the  force  of  the  third  argument,  unless  it 
is  an  established  fact  that  Paul  could  not  repeat  himself  to 
a  certain  degree,  even  in  two  Epistles  written  within  the 
space  of  a  few  months,  on  a  subject  that  engaged  the  mind 
of  the  apostle  for  some  time,  to  the  same  church  and  there- 
fore with  a  view  to  almost  identical  conditions.  This  argu- 
ment looks  strange  especially  in  view  of  the  following  one, 
which  urges  the  rejection  of  this  letter,  because  it  is  so  un- 
like the  other  Pauline  writings.  The  points  of  difference 
between  our  letter  and  I  Thessalonians  are  generally  exag- 
gerated, and  the  examples  cited  by  Davidson  to  prove  the 
dissimilarity  are  justly  ridiculed  by  Salmon,  who  styles 
such  criticism  "childish  criticism,  that  is  to  say,  criticism 
such  as  might  proceed  from  a  child  who  insists  that  a  story 
shall  always  be  told  to  him  in  precisely  the  same  way." 
Introd.  p.  398.  The  salutation  in  3:  17  does  not  point  to  a 
time  later  than  that  of  Paul,  since  he  too  had  reason  to  fear 
the  evil  influence  of  forged  Epistles,  2 :  2.  He  merely  states 
that,  with  a  view  to  such  deception,  he  would  in  the  future 
authenticate  all  his  letters  by  attaching  an  autographic  salu- 
tation. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  Evidently  some  additional 
information  regarding  the  state  of  affairs  at  Thessalonica 
had  reached  Paul,  it  may  be  through  the  bearers  of  the  first 
Epistle,  or  by  means  of  a  communication  from  the  elders  of 
the  church.  It  seems  that  some  letter  had  been  circulated 
among  them,  purporting  to  come  from  Paul,  and  that  some 
false  spirit  was  at  work  in  the  congregation.  The  persecu- 
tion of  the  Thessalonians  still  continued  and  had  probably 
increased  in  force,  and  in  some  way  the  impression  had  been 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS        233 


created  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  was  at  hand.  This  led  on 
the  one  hand  to  feverish  anxiety,  and  on  the  other,  to  idle- 
ness. Hence  the  apostle  deemed  it  necessary  to  write  a 
second  letter  to  the  Thessalonians. 

The  purpose  of  the  writer  was  to  encourage  the  sorely 
pressed  church ;  to  calm  the  excitement  by  pointing  out  that 
the  second  advent  of  the  Lord  could  not  be  expected  imme- 
diately, since  the  mystery  of  lawlessness  had  to  develop  first 
and  to  issue  in  the  man  of  sin ;  and  to  exhort  the  irregular 
ones  to  a  quiet,  industrious  and  orderly  conduct. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  Some  writers,  such  as  Grotius, 
Ewald,  Vander  Vies  and  Laurent  advocated  the  theory  that 
II  Thessalonians  was  written  before  I  Thessalonians,  but 
the  arguments  adduced  to  support  that  position  cannot  bear 
the  burden.  Moreover  II  Thess.  2:  15  clearly  refers  to  a 
former  letter  of  the  apostle.  In  all  probability  our  Epistle 
was  composed  a  few  months  after  the  first  one,  for  on  the 
one  hand  Silas  and  Timothy  were  still  with  the  apostle,  1:1, 
which  was  not  the  case  after  he  left  Corinth,  and  they  were 
still  antagonized  by  the  Jews  so  that  most  likely  their  case 
had  not  yet  been  brought  before  GaHio,  Acts  18:  12-17;  and 
on  the  other  hand  a  change  had  come  about  both  in  the  senti- 
ment of  the  apostle,  who  speaks  no  more  of  his  desire  to 
visit  the  Thessalonians,  and  in  the  condition  of  the  church 
to  which  he  was  writing,  a  change  that  would  necessarily 
require  some  time.  We  should  most  likely  date  the  letter 
about  the  middle  of  A.  D.  53. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE 

The  early  Church  found  no  reason  to  doubt  the  canoni- 
city  of  this  letter.  Little  stress  can  be  laid,  it  is  true,  on  the 
supposed  reference  to  its  language  in  Ignatius,  Barnabas,  the 
Didache  and  Justin  Martyr.  It  is  quite  evident,  however, 
that  Polycarp  used  the  Epistle.  Moreover  it  has  a  place  in 
the  canon  of  Marcion,  is  mentioned  among  the  Pauline  let- 
ters in  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  and  is  contained  in  the  old 
Latin  and  Syriac  Versions.     Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexan- 


234  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

dria,  TertulHan  and  others  since  their  time,  quote  it  by  name. 
The  great  permanent  value  of  this  Epistle  lies  in  the  fact 
that  it  corrects  false  notions  regarding  the  second  advent  of 
Christ,  notions  that  led  to  indolence  and  disorderliness.  We 
are  taught  in  this  Epistle  that  the  great  day  of  Christ  will 
not  come  until  the  mystery  of  iniquity  that  is  working  in  the 
world  receives  its  full  development,  and  brings  forth  the  son 
of  perdition  who  as  the  very  incarnation  of  satan  will  set 
himself  against  Christ  and  his  Church.  If  the  Church  of 
God  had  always  remembered  this  lesson,  she  would  have 
been  spared  many  an  irregularity  and  disappointment.  The 
letter  also  reminds  us  once  more  of  the  fact  that  the  day  of 
the  Lord  will  be  a  day  of  terror  to  the  wicked,  but  a  day 
of  dehverance  and  glory  for  the  Church  of  Christ. 


The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

In  the  case  of  these  Epistles  it  seems  best  to  consider  the 
question  of  authorship  first,  and  to  treat  them  as  a  unity  in 
the  discussion  of  their  authenticity.  When  we  examine  the 
external  testimony  to  these  letters  we  find  that  this  is  in  no 
way  deficient.  If  many  have  doubted  their  genuineness,  it 
was  not  because  they  discovered  that  the  early  Church  did 
not  recognize  them.  It  is  true  that  some  early  heretics,  who 
acknowledged  the  genuineness  of  the  other  letters  attributed 
to  Paul,  rejected  these,  such  as  Basilides  and  Marcion,  but 
Jerome  says  that  their  adverse  judgment  was  purely  arbi- 
trary. From  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria 
and  Tertullian,  who  were  the  first  to  quote  the  New  Testa- 
ment books  by  name,  until  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  no  one  doubted  the  Pauline  authorship  of  these  let- 
ters. The  Muratorian  Fragment  ascribes  them  to  Paul,  and 
they  are  included  in  all  MSS.,  Versions  and  Lists  of  the 
Pauhne  letters,  in  all  of  which  (with  the  single  exception 
of  the  Muratorian  Fragment)  they  are  arranged  in  the 
same  order,  viz.  I  Timothy,  II  Timothy,  Titus. 

As  far  as  the  internal  evidence  is  concerned  we  may  call 
attention  in  a  preliminary  way  to  a  few  facts  that  favor  the 
authenticity  of  these  letters  and  take  up  the  consideration  of 
other  features  in  connection  with  the  objections  that  are 
urged  against  them.  They  are  all  self-attested ;  they  contain 
the  characteristic  Pauline  blessing  at  the  beginning,  end  with 
the  customary  salutation,  and  reveal  the  usual  solicitude  of 
Paul  for  his  churches  and  for  those  associated  with  him  in 
the  work ;  they  point  to  the  same  relation  between  Paul  and 
his  spiritual  sons  Timothy  and  Titus  that  we  know  from 


236  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

other  sources;  and  they  refer  to  persons  (cf.  II  Tim.  4' 
Titus  3)  that  are  also  mentioned  elsewhere  as  companions 
and  co-laborers  of  Paul. 

Yet  it  is  especially  on  the  strength  of  internal  evidence 
that  these  Epistles  have  been  attacked.  J.  E.  C.  Schmidt  in 
1804,  soon  followed  by  Schleiermacher,  was  the  first  one  to 
cast  doubt  on  their  genuineness.  Since  that  time  they  have 
been  rejected,  not  only  by  the  Tubingen  school  and  by  prac- 
tically all  negative  critics,  but  also  by  some  scholars  that 
usually  incline  to  the  conservative  side,  such  as  Neander 
(rejecting  only  I  Timothy),  Meyer;  (Introd.  to  Romans)  and 
Sabatier.  While  the  majority  of  radical  critics  reject  these 
letters  unconditionally,  Credner,  Harnack,  Hausrath  and 
McGiffert  believe  that  they  contain  some  genuine  Pauline 
sections ;  the  last  named  scholar  regarding  especially  the 
passages  that  contain  personal  references,  such  as  II  Tim. 
1 :  15-18;  4:9-21  ;  Titus  3:  12,  13,  as  authentic,  and  surmis- 
ing that  some  others  may  be  saved  from  the  ruins,  The 
Apostolic  Age  p.  405  ff.  The  genuineness  of  the  Pastorals 
is  defended  by  Weiss,  Zahn,  Salmon,  Godet,  Barth,  and 
nearly  all  the  Commentators,  such  as  Huther,  Van  Ooster- 
zee,  ElHcott,  Alford,  White  (in  The  Exp.  Gk.  Test.)  e.  a. 

Several  arguments  are  employed  to  discredit  the  authen- 
ticity of  these  letters.  We  shall  briefly  consider  the  most 
important  ones.  (1)  It  is  impossible  to  find  a  place  for  their 
composition  and  the  historical  situation  which  they  reflect 
in  the  life  of  Paul,  as  we  know  it  from  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  Reuss,  who  provisionally  accepted  their  Pauline 
authorship  in  his,  History  of  the  New  Testament  1  pp.  80- 
85  ;  121-129,  did  so  with  the  distinct  proviso  that  they  had  to 
ht  into  the  narrative  of  Acts  somewhere.  Finding  that  his 
scheme  did  not  work  out  well,  he  afterwards  rejected  I 
Timothy  and  Titus.  Cf.  his  Commentary  on  the  Pastorals. 
(2)  The  conception  of  Christianity  found  in  these  letters  is 
un-Pauline  and  clearly  represents  a  later  development.  They 
contain  indeed  some  Pauline  ideas,  but  these  are  exceptional. 
"There  is  no  trace  whatever,"  says  McGififert,  "of  the  great 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  237 

fundamental  truth  of  Paul's  gospel, — death  unto  the  flesh 
and  life  in  the  Spirit."  Instead  of  the  faith  by  which  we  are 
justified  and  united  to  Christ,  we  find  piety  and  good  works 
prominently  in  the  foreground.  Cf.  I  Tim.  1:5;  2:2,  15; 
4:7  f.;  5:4;  6:6;— II  Tim.  1:3;  3:5,  12;— Titus  1:1; 
2:12.  Moreover  the  word  faith  does  not,  as  in  the  letters 
of  Paul,  denote  the  faith  that  believes,  but  rather  the  sum 
and  substance  of  that  which  is  believed,  I  Tim.  1:19;  3:9; 
4:1,  6;  5:8.  And  sound  doctrine  is  spoken  of  in  a  way 
that  reminds  one  of  the  characteristic  esteem  in  which 
orthodoxy  was  later  held,  cf.  I  Tim.  1:10;  4:6;  6:3; — 
II  Tim.  4 :  3  ; — Titus  1:9;2:1,  7.  (3)  The  church  organi- 
zation that  is  reflected  in  these  letters  points  to  a  later  age. 
It  is  unlikely  that  Paul,  believing  as  he  did  in  the  speedy 
second  coming  of  Christ,  would  pay  so  much  attention  to 
details  of  organization ;  nor  does  it  seem  probable  that  he 
would  lay  such  stress  on  the  offices  received  by  ecclesiastical 
appointment,  and  have  so  little  regard  to  the  spiritual  gifts 
that  are  independent  of  official  position  and  that  occupy  a 
very  prominent  place  in  the  undoubted  writings  of  the 
apostle.  Moreover  the  organization  assumed  in  these  letters 
reveals  second  century  conditions.  Alongside  of  the 
7cp£(T^UTepot  the  eTrtaxoTcog  is  named  as  a  primus  inter  pares 
(notice  the  singular  in  I  Tim.  3:1;  Titus  1:7);  and  the 
office-bearers  in  general  are  given  undue  prominence.  There 
is  a  separate  class  of  widows,  of  which  some  held  an  official 
position  in  the  Church,  just  as  there  was  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, I  Tim.  5.  Ecclesiastical  office  is  conferred  by  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands,  I  Tim.  5  :  22 ;  and  the  second  marriage  of 
bishops,  deacons,  and  ministering  widows  was  not  to  be 
tolerated,  I  Tim.  3:2,  12  ;  5  :  9-1 1 ;  Tit.  1  :  6.  (4)  The  false 
teachers  and  teachings  to  which  the  Epistles  refer  are  evi- 
dently second  century  Gnostics  and  Gnosticism.  The  term 
avTtOeaeti;,  I  Tim.  6:20,  according  to  Baur,  contains  a  refer- 
ence to  the  work  of  Marcion  which  bore  that  title.  And  the 
endless  genealogies  of  I  Tim.  1 : 4  are  supposed  to  refer  to 
the  Aeons  of  Valentinus.     (5)  The  most  weighty  objection 


238  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

is,  however,  that  the  style  of  these  letters  dififers  from  that 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles  to  such  a  degree  as  to  imply  diver- 
sity of  authorship.  Says  Davidson :  "The  change  of  style 
is  too  great  to  comport  with  identity  of  authorship.  Imita- 
tions of  phrases  and  terms  occurring  in  Paul's  authentic 
Epistles  are  obvious ;  inferiority  and  feebleness  show  de- 
pendence ;  while  the  new  constructions  and  words  betray  a 
writer  treating  of  new  circumstances  and  giving  expression 
to  new  ideas,  yet  personating  the  apostle  all  the  while.  The 
change  is  palpable ;  though  the  author  throws  himself  back 
into  the  situation  of  Paul  the  prisoner."  Introd.  II  p.  66. 
Holtzmann  claims  that  of  the  897  words  that  constitute 
these  letters  (proper  names  excepted)  171  (read  148)  are 
(ZTua^  XsYOfxeva,  of  which  74  are  found  in  I  Timothy,  46 
in  II  Timothy,  and  28  in  Titus.  Besides  these  there  is  a 
great  number  of  phrases  and  expressions  that  are  peculiar 
and  point  away  from  Paul,  such  as  Bttoxstv  St7,atoauvir]v, 
I  Tim.  6:11;  II  Tim.  2:22;  cpuXacaetv  ty]v  TcapaO-^/.iQV, 
I  Tim.  6:20;  II  Tim.  1:12,  14;  TcapaxoXouOelv  T'fl 
StSaaitaXta,  I  Tim.  4:6;    II  Tim,  3:10;    ^i^rfkoi  xsvo^wvtat, 

I  Tim.  6:20;    II  Tim.  2:16;    avOpwTco?  Osou,  I  Tim.  6:11; 

II  Tim.  3:17;  etc.  On  the  other  hand  many  expressions 
that  play  a  prominent  part  in  Pauline  literature  are  absent 
from  these  letters,  as  a3[/,oi;,  ay-po^utTxta,  -^voipi^eiv ,  8ty.aioauvTr) 
Gsoii,  Stx,atW[JLa,  Ipya  v6[xou,  opLOtot^a,  irotpaSoatq,  etc. 

As  far  as  the  first  argument  is  concerned,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  these  Epistles  do  not  fit  in  the  life  of  Paul,  as 
we  know  it  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Their  genuine- 
ness depends  on  the  question,  whether  or  not  Paul  was  set 
free  again  after  the  imprisonment  described  in  Acts  28. 
Now  we  have  reasons,  aside  from  the  contents  of  these 
Epistles,  to  believe  that  he  was  liberated  and  resumed  his 
missionary  labors.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Felix,  Festus 
and  Agrippa  found  no  guilt  in  Paul,  and  that  the  apostle 
was  sent  to  Rome,  only  because  he  appealed  to  Csesar,  the 
presumption  is  that  he  was  not  condemned  at  Rome.    This 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  239 


presumption  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  fact  that,  when 
the  apostle  wrote  his  letters  to  the  Philippians  and  to  Phile- 
mon, the  prospect  of  his  release  seemed  favorable,  Phil, 
1:25;  2:24;  Philem.  22;  compare  II  Tim.  4:6-8.  It  is 
objected  to  this  that  Paul,  in  taking  his  farewell  of  the  Ephe- 
s'an  elders,  says  to  them:  "I  know  (olSa)  that  ye  all — 
shall  see  my  face  no  more,"  Acts  20:25.  But  it  may  be 
doubted,  whether  we  have  the  right  to  press  this  olSa  so 
that  it  becomes  prophetic;  if  we  have,  it  is  counterbalanced 
by  the  olSa  in  Phil.  1 :25.  The  most  natural  inference  from 
the  data  of  Scripture  (outside  of  these  Epistles)  is  that 
Paul  was  set  free ;  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  tradition  of 
the  early  Church,  as  it  is  expressed  by  Eusebius,  Church 
Hist.  II  22:  Paul  is  said  (Xoyo?  ix&i),  after  having  de- 
fended himself  to  have  set  forth  again  upon  the  ministry 
of  preaching,  and  to  have  entered  the  same  city  a  second 
time,  and  to  have  ended  his  life  by  martyrdom.  Whilst 
then  a  prisoner,  he  wrote  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  in 
which  he  both  mentions  his  first  defense,  and  his  impending 
death."  Moreover  the  Muratorian  Fragment  speaks  of  a 
visit  that  Paul  paid  to  Spain,  which  cannot  be  placed  before 
the  first  Roman  imprisonment.  And  Clement  of  Rome  states 
in  his  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  after  relating  that  the  apostle 
labored  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  that  he  came  to  "the 
bounderies  of  the  West."  Now  it  does  not  seem  likely  that 
he,  who  himself  lived  in  Rome,  would  refer  to  the  city  on 
the  Tiber  in  those  terms.  And  if  this  is  not  the  import  of 
those  words,  the  presumption  is  that  he  too  has  reference 
to  Spain. 

Paul's  movements  after  his  release  are  uncertain,  and  all 
that  can  be  said  regarding  them  is  conjectural.  Leaving 
Rome  he  probably  first  repaired  to  Macedonia  and  Asia 
Minor  for  the  intended  visits,  Phil.  1 :  23-26 ;  Philem.  22, 
and  then  undertook  his  long  looked  for  journey  to  Spain, 
Rom.  15:24.  Returning  from  there,  he  possibly  went  to 
Ephesus,  where  he  had  a  dispute  with  Hymenaeus  and  Alex- 


240  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

ander,  I  Tim.  1 :  20,  and  engaged  the  services  of  Onesi- 
phorus,  II  Tim.  1 :  16-18.  Leaving  Timothy  in  charge  of 
the  Ephesian  church,  he  departed  for  Macedonia,  I  Tim. 
1 :  3,  from  where  he  most  likely  wrote  I  Timothy.  After 
this  he  may  have  visited  Crete  with  Titus,  leaving  the  latter 
there  to  organize  the  churches.  Tit.  1 :  5,  and  returning  to 
F^phesus  according  to  his  wishes,  I  Tim.  3:  14;  4:  13,  where 
Alexander  the  coppersmith  did  him  great  evil,  II  Tim. 
4:  14.  From  here  he  probably  wrote  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
for  he  was  evidently  in  some  center  of  missionary  enter- 
prise, when  he  composed  it,  Tit.  3:  12-15.  Departing  from 
Ephesus,  he  went  through  Miletus,  II  Tim.  4 :  20  to  Troas, 
II  Tim.  4:13,  where  he  was  probably  re-arrested,  and 
whence  he  was  taken  to  Rome  by  way  of  Corinth,  the  abode 
of  Erastus,  II  Tim.  4 :  20 ;  Rom.  16 :  23.  In  that  case  he 
did  not  reach  Nicopolis,  where  he  intended  to  spend  the 
winter.  In  this  statement  we  proceed  on  the  assumption 
that  the  winter  mentioned  in  II  Tim.  4:21  is  the  same  as 
that  of  Titus  3 :  12.  The  second  imprisonment  of  Paul  was 
more  severe  than  the  first,  II  Tim.  1 :  16,  17 ;  2  :  9.  His  first 
defense  appears  to  have  been  successful,  II  Tim.  4:  16,  17, 
but  as  his  final  hearing  drew  nigh,  he  had  a  presentiment  of 
approaching  martyrdom.  According  to  the  Chronicles  of 
Eusebius  Paul  died  as  a  martyr  in  the  thirteenth  year  of 
Nero,  or  A.  D.  67. 

The  objection  that  the  theological  teaching  of  these 
Epistles  is  different  from  that  of  Paul,  must  be  taken  cum 
grano  salts,  because  this  teaching  merely  complements  and 
in  no  way  contradicts  the  representation  of  the  undoubted 
Epistles.  We  find  no  further  objective  development  of  the 
truth  here,  but  only  a  practical  application  of  the  doctrines 
already  unfolded  in  previous  letters.  And  it  was  entirely 
fitting  that,  as  every  individual  letter,  so  too  the  entire  cycle 
of  Pauline  Epistles  should  end  with  practical  admonitions. 
Historically  this  is  easily  explained,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the 
fact  that  the  productive  period  of  the  apostle's  life  had  come 
to  an  end,  and  it  is  now  Paul  the  aged — for  all  the  vicissi- 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  241 

tudes  of  a  busy  and  stormy  life  must  greatly  have  sapped  his 
strength — that  speaks  to  us,  cf .  Philem.  9 ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  by  the  fact  that  the  heresy  which  the  apostle  here  en- 
counters had  developed  into  ethical  corruption.  If  it  is  said 
that  the  writer  of  these  Epistles  ascribes  a  meritorious  char- 
acter to  good  works,  we  take  exception  and  qualify  that  as 
a  false  statement.  The  passages  referred  to,  such  as  I  Tim. 
1 :  15 ;  3 :  13  ;  4 :  8 ;  6 :  18  ff. ;  II  Tim.  4 :  8,  do  not  prove  the 
assertion.  Since  a  rather  full  statement  of  the  Christian 
truth  had  preceded  these  letters,  it  need  not  cause  surprise 
that  Paul  should  refer  to  it  as  "the  sound  doctrine,"  Cf. 
Rom.  6:  17.  Nor  does  it  seem  strange,  in  view  of  this,  that 
alongside  of  the  subjective  the  objective  sense  of  the  word 
faith  should  begin  to  assert  itself.  We  find  an  approach  to 
this  already  in  Rom.  12:6;  Gal.  1  :  23 ;  Phil.  1 :  27. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  think  that  the  emphasis  which  these 
letters  place  on  the  external  organization  of  the  churches, 
and  the  particular  type  of  ecclesiastical  polity  which  they 
reflect,  precludes  their  Pauline  authorship.  There  is  noth- 
ing strange  in  the  fact  that  Paul,  knowing  that  the  day  of 
Christ  was  not  at  hand  (II  Thess.  2:1-12),  should  lay 
special  stress  on  church  government  now  that  his  ministry 
was  drawing  to  a  close.  It  might  rather  have  caused  sur- 
prise, if  he  had  not  thus  made  provision  for  the  future  of 
his  churches.  And  it  is  perfectly  natural  also  that  he  should 
emphasize  the  offices  in  the  church  rather  than  the  extraor- 
dinary spiritual  gifts,  since  these  gradually  vanished  and 
made  place  for  the  ordinary  ministry  of  the  Word.  The 
position  that  the  office-bearers  mentioned  in  these  letters 
prove  a  development  beyond  that  of  the  apostolic  age,  is  not 
substantiated  by  the  facts.  Deacons  were  appointed  shortly 
after  the  establishment  of  the  Church,  Acts  6;  elders  were 
chosen  from  place  to  place,  as  the  apostle  founded  churches 
among  the  Gentiles,  Acts  14 :  23 ;  and  in  Phil,  1 :  1  Paul 
addresses  not  only  the  Philippians  in  general,  but  also  "the 
bishops  and  deacons."  Moreover  in  Eph.  4:11  the  apostle 
says  :  "And  He  gave  you  some  apostles  ;  and  some  prophets  ; 


242  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

and  some  evangelists ;  and  some  pastors  and  teachers." 
Surely  it  does  not  seem  that  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  strik- 
ingly different  in  this  respect  from  the  others.  If  it  be  said 
that  the  bishop  becomes  so  prominent  here  as  to  indicate 
that  the  leaven  of  hierarchy  was  already  working,  we 
answer  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  terms  eTuto-xoTCO? 
and  TCpea^uxepoq  are  clearly  synonymous.  The  fact  that  the 
bishop  is  spoken  of  in  the  singular  proves  nothing  to  the 
contrary.  Not  once  are  bishops  and  presbyters  arranged 
alongside  of  each  other  as  denoting  two  separate  classes, 
and  in  Titus  1  :  5-7  the  terms  are  clearly  interchangeable. 
The  case  of  Phebe,  Rom.  16:  1  certainly  does  not  counte- 
nance the  theory  that  the  office  of  deaconess  was  not  called 
into  existence  until  the  second  century.  And  the  passages 
that  are  supposed  to  prohibit  the  second  marriage  of  office- 
bearers are  of  too  uncertain  interpretation  to  justify  the 
conclusions  drawn  from  them. 

Granted  that  the  errors  to  which  these  letters  refer  were 
of  a  Gnostic  character — as  Alford  is  willing  to  grant — ,  it  by 
no  means  follows  that  the  Epistles  are  second  century  pro- 
ductions, since  the  first  signs  of  the  Gnostic  heresy  are 
known  to  have  made  their  appearance  in  the  apostolic  age. 
But  it  is  an  unproved  assumption  that  the  writer  refers  to 
Gnosticism  of  any  kind.  It  is  perfectly  evident  from  the 
letters  that  the  heresy  was  of  a  Judseistic,  though  not  of  a 
Pharisseic  type,  resembling  very  much  the  error  that  threat- 
ened the  Colossian  church.  Hort,  after  examining  it  care- 
fully comes  to  the  conclusion  that  "there  is  a  total  want  of 
evidence  for  anything  pointing  to  even  rudimentary  Gnosti- 
cism or  Essenism."  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  errorists 
prided  themselves  as  being  teachers  of  the  law,  I  Tim.  1 :  7, 
and  that  the  term  yeveaXoY'a  is  brought  in  close  connection 
with  "strivings  about  the  law"  in  Titus  3 : 9,  the  presump- 
tion is  that  it  contains  no  reference  whatever  to  the  emana- 
tions of  Gnostic  aeons,  but  rather,  as  Zahn  surmises,  to  rab- 
binic disputations  regarding  Jewish  genealogies.     And  the 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  243 

word  "antitheses,"  of  which  Hort  says  that  it  cannot  refer 
to  Marcion's  work,  is  simply  descriptive  of  the  opposition 
in  which  the  heretics  that  boasted  of  a  higher  knowledge 
placed  themselves  to  the  Gospel. 

The  argument  from  style  has  often  proved  to  be  a  very 
precarious  one.  If  a  person's  vocabulary  were  a  fixed  quan- 
tity, he  were  limited  to  the  use  of  certain  set  phrases  and 
expressions,  and  his  style,  once  acquired,  were  unchangeable 
and  necessarily  wanting  in  flexibility,  a  plausible  case  might 
be  made  out.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  such  is  not  the  usual 
condition  of  things,  and  certainly  was  not  the  case  with  Paul, 
who  to  a  great  extent  moulded  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  need  not  and  cannot  deny  that  the  language 
of  the  Pastorals  has  many  peculiarities,  but  in  seeking  to 
explain  these  we  should  not  immediately  take  refuge  in  a 
supposed  difiference  of  authorship,  but  rather  make  allow- 
ance for  the  influence  of  Paul's  advancing  years,  of  the 
altered  conditions  of  his  life,  of  the  situation  in  which  his 
readers  were  placed,  and  of  the  subjects  with  which  he  was 
obliged  to  deal  in  these  Epistles.  And  let  us  not  forget  what 
N.  J.  D.  White  says,  Exp.  Gk.  Test.  IV  p.  63,  that  "the 
acknowledged  peculiarities  must  not  be  allowed  to  obscure 
the  equally  undoubted  fact  that  the  Epistles  present  not  only 
as  many  characteristic  Pauline  words  as  the  writer  had  use 
for,  but  that,  in  the  more  significant  matter  of  turns  of  ex- 
pression, the  style  of  the  letters  is  fundamentally  Pauline. 
Cf .  also  the  judicious  remarks  of  Reuss  on  the  style  of  these 
letters.    History  of  the  New  Testament,  I  p.  123. 

In  concluding  our  discussion  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  we  desire  to  remark :  ( 1 )  The  critics 
admit  that  the  objections  urged  by  them  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  letters  do  not  apply  to  all  three  of  them  in  the 
same  degree.  According  to  Baur  II  Timothy  and  Titus  are 
the  least  suspicious.  He  maintains,  however,  that  I  Timothy 
will  always  be  "the  betrayer  of  its  spurious  brothers."  But 
it  would  be  reasonable  to  turn  the  statement  about  with 
Reuss,  and  to  say  that  "so  long  as  no  decisive  and  palpable 


244 NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

proofs  of  the  contrary  are  presented  the  two  which  are  in 
and  of  themselves  less  suspicious  ought  always  to  aflford 
protection  to  the  third  which  is  more  so."  Ibid.  p.  84.  (2) 
Baur  and  his  followers  rightly  held  that,  in  order  to  prove 
the  spuriousness  of  these  letters,  they  had  to  point  out  the 
positive  purpose  of  the  forgery ;  in  which,  according  to 
Reuss,  they  utterly  failed,  when  they  said  that  it  was  to  com- 
bat the  Gnostic  heresies  that  were  prevalent  after  A.  D.  150, 
Ibid.  p.  124  f.  (3)  It  looks  a  great  deal  like  a  confession  of 
defeat,  when  several  of  the  negative  critics  admit  that  the 
passages  in  which  personal  reminiscences  are  found,  must 
be  regarded  as  genuine,  for  it  means  that  they  yield  their 
case  wherever  they  can  be  controlled.  For  a  broader  dis- 
cussion of  the  authenticity  of  these  letters,  cf.  Alford,  Pro- 
legomena Section  I ;  Holtzmann,  Einl.  pp.  274-292 ;  Zahn, 
Einl.  I  pp.  459-491 ;  Godet,  Introd.  pp.  567-611  ;  Farrar.  St. 
Paul,  II  pp.  607-622 ;  Salmon,  Introd.  pp.  433-452 ;  McGif- 
fert,  Apostolic  Age  pp.  399-423 ;  Davidson,  Introd.  II  pp. 
21-76.  Lock  (in  Hastings  D.  B.  Artt.  I  Timothy,  II  Tim- 
othy and  Titus.) 


The  First  Epistle  to  Timothy. 

CONTENTS. 

The  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  may  be  divided  into  four 
parts : 

/.  Introduction,  1  :  1-20.  The  apostle  begins  by  remind- 
ing Timothy  that  he  had  been  left  at  Ephesus  to  counteract 
prevalent  heresies,  1-10.  He  directs  the  attention  of  his 
spiritual  son  to  the  Gospel  contradicted  by  these  errors, 
thanks  the  Lord  that  he  was  made  a  minister  of  it,  and 
charges  Timothy  to  act  in  accordance  with  that  Gospel, 
11-20. 

//.  General  Regulations  for  Church  Life,  2  :  1 — 4 :  5. 
Here  we  find  first  of  all  directions  for  public  intercession 
and  for  the  behavior  of  men  and  women  in  the  meetings  of 
the  church,  2 :  1-15.  These  are  followed  by  an  explicit  state- 
ment of  the  qualities  that  are  necessary  in  bishops  and  dea- 
cons, 3:1-13.  The  expressed  purpose  of  these  directions 
is,  to  promote  the  good  order  of  the  church,  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth,  essentially  revealed  in  Christ,  from 
which  the  false  brethren  were  departing,  3  :  14 — 4 :  5. 

///.  Personal  Advice  to  Timothy,  4:  6 — 6:  2.  Here  the 
apostle  speaks  of  Timothy's  behavior  towards  the  false 
teachers,  4:  6-11 ;  of  the  way  in  which  he  should  regard  and 
discharge  his  ministerial  duties,  12-16;  and  of  the  attitude 
he  ought  to  assume  towards  the  individual  members  of  the 
church,  especially  towards  the  widows,  the  elders  and  the 
slaves,  5  :  1 — 6 :  2. 

IV.  Conclusion,  6:3-21.  The  apostle  now  makes  an- 
other attack  on  the  heretical  teachers,  3 — 10;  and  exhorts 
Timothy  to  be  true  to  his  calling  and  to  avoid  all  erroneous 


246  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

teachings,  giving  him  special  directions  with  respect  to  the 
rich,  11-21. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  This  letter  is  one  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  of  Paul, 
which  are  so  called,  because  they  were  written  to  persons 
engaged  in  pastoral  work  and  contain  many  directions  for 
pastoral  duties.  They  were  sent,  not  to  churches,  but  to 
office-bearers,  instructing  them  how  to  behave  in  the  house 
of  God.  It  is  evident,  however,  that,  with  the  possible  ex- 
ception of  II  Timothy,  they  were  not  intended  exclusively 
for  the  persons  to  whom  they  were  addressed,  but  also  for 
the  churches  in  which  these  labored.  Cf.  as  far  as  this 
Epistle  is  concerned,  4:6,  11;  5:7;  6:17. 

2.  From  the  preceding  it  follows  that  this  letter  is  not 
doctrinal  but  practical.  We  find  no  further  objective  devel- 
opment of  the  truth  here,  but  clear  directions  as  to  its  prac- 
tical application,  especially  in  view  of  divergent  tendencies. 
The  truth  developed  in  previous  Epistles  is  here  represented 
as  the  "sound  doctrine"  that  must  be  the  standard  of  life  and 
action,  as  "the  faith"  that  should  be  kept,  and  as  "a  faithful 
word  worthy  of  all  acceptation."  The  emphasis  clearly  falls 
on  the  ethical  requirements  of  the  truth. 

3.  The  letter  emphasizes,  as  no  other  Epistle  does,  the 
external  organization  of  the  church.  The  apostle  feels  that 
the  end  of  his  life  is  fast  approaching,  and  therefore  deems 
it  necessary  to  give  more  detailed  instruction  regarding  the 
office-bearers  in  the  church,  in  order  that,  when  he  is  gone, 
his  youthful  co-laborers  and  the  church  itself  may  know 
how  its  aflfairs  should  be  regulated.  Of  the  office-bearers 
the  apostle  mentions  the  imcY-onoq  and  the  TCpej^utepot, 
which  are  evidently  identical,  the  first  name  indicating  their 
work,  and  the  second  emphasizing  their  age;  the  Stavtovot, 
the  fuvacxe?,  if  3:11  refers  to  deaconesses,  which  is  very 
probable  (so  Ellicott,  Alford,  White  in  Exp.  Gk.  Test.) 
and  the  '/iipat,  ch.  5,  though  it  is  doubtful,  whether  these 
were  indeed  office-bearers. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  TIMOTHY  247 

4.  Regarding  the  style  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  in  general 
Huther  remarks  :  "In  the  other  Pauline  Epistles  the  fulness 
of  the  apostle's  thoughts  struggle  with  the  expression,  and 
cause  peculiar  difficulties  in  exposition.  The  thoughts  slide 
into  one  another,  and  are  so  intertwined  in  many  forms  that 
not  seldom  the  new  thought  begins  before  a  correct  expres- 
sion has  been  given  of  the  thought  that  preceded.  Of  this 
confusion  there  is  no  example  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  Even 
in  such  passages  as  come  nearest  to  this  confused  style,  such 
as  the  beginning  of  the  first  and  second  Epistles  of  Timothy 
(Tit.  2  :  11  ff. ;  3  :  4  fif.)  the  connection  of  ideas  is  still  on  the 
whole  simple."  Comni.  p.  9.  This  estimate  is  in  general 
correct,  though  we  would  hardly  speak  of  Paul's  style  in 
his  other  letters  as  "a  confused  style." 

THE  PERSON  TO  WHOM  THE  EPISTLE  WAS 
WRITTEN. 

Paul  addresses  this  letter  to  "Timothy  my  own  son  in 
the  faith,"  1 : 2.  We  find  the  first  mention  of  Timothy  in 
Acts  16:  1,  where  he  is  introduced  as  an  inhabitant  of  Ly- 
stra.  He  was  the  son  of  a  Jewish  mother  and  a  Greek 
father,  of  whom  we  have  no  further  knowledge.  Both  his 
mother  Eunice  and  his  grandmother  Lois  are  spoken  of  as 
Christians  in  II  Tim.  1:5.  In  all  probabihty  he  was  con- 
verted by  Paul  on  his  first  missionary  journey,  since  he  was 
already  a  disciple,  when  the  apostle  entered  Lystra  on  his 
second  tour.  He  had  a  good  report  in  his  home  town.  Acts 
16 : 2,  and,  being  circumcised  for  the  sake  of  the  Jews,  he 
joined  Paul  and  Silas  in  their  missionary  labors.  Passing 
with  the  missionaries  into  Europe  and  helping  them  at 
Philippi,  Thessalonica  and  Berea,  he  remanied  with  Silas  in 
the  last  named  place,  while  Paul  pressed  on  to  Athens  and 
Corinth,  where  they  finally  joined  the  apostle  again,  Acts 
17:  14;  18:  5.  Cf.  however  also  I  Thess.  3:1  and  p.  222 
above.  He  abode  there  with  the  missionaries  and  his  name 
appears  with  those  of  Paul  and  Silvanus  in  the  addresses 
of  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.    We  next  find  him 


248  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

ministering  to  the  apostle  during  his  long  stay  at  Ephesus, 
Acts  19 :  22,  from  where  he  was  sent  to  Macedonia  and 
Corinth,  Acts  19:21,  22;  I  Cor.  4:  17;  16:  10,  though  it  is 
doubtful,  whether  he  reached  that  city.  He  was  again  in 
Paul's  company,  when  II  Corinthians  was  written,  II  Cor. 
1 :  1,  and  accompanied  the  apostle  to  Corinth,  Rom.  16:21, 
and  again  on  his  return  through  Macedonia  to  Asia,  Acts 
20:3,  4,  probably  also  to  Jerusalem,  I  Cor.  16:3.  He  is 
then  mentioned  in  the  Epistles  of  the  imprisonment,  which 
show  that  he  was  with  the  apostle  at  Rome,  Phil.  1:1;  Col. 
1:1;  Philem.  1.  From  this  time  on  we  hear  no  more  of  him 
until  the  Pastoral  Epistles  show  him  to  be  in  charge  of  the 
Ephesian  church,  I  Tim.  1:3. 

From  I  Tim.  4:  14,  and  II  Tim.  1  : 6  we  learn  that  he 
was  set  apart  for  the  ministry  by  Paul  with  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  in  accordance  with  prophetic  utterances  of  the  Spirit, 
I  Tim.  1 :  18,  when  he  probably  received  the  title  of  evange- 
list, II  Tim.  4 :  5,  though  in  I  Thess.  2  :  6  he  is  loosely  classed 
with  Paul  and  Silas  as  an  apostle.  We  do  not  know  when 
this  formal  ordination  took  place,  whether  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  his  work,  or  when  he  was  placed  in  charge  of  the 
church  at  Ephesus. 

The  character  of  Timothy  is  clearly  marked  in  Scripture. 
His  readiness  to  leave  his  home  and  to  submit  to  the  rite  of 
circumcision  reveal  his  self-denial  and  earnestness  of  pur- 
pose. This  is  all  the  more  striking,  since  he  was  very  affec- 
tionate, II  Tim.  1 : 4,  delicate  and  often  ill,  1  Tim.  5 :  23. 
At  the  same  time  he  was  timid,  I  Cor.  16 :  10,  hesitating  to 
assert  his  authority,  I  Tim.  4:  12,  and  needed  to  be  warned 
against  youthful  lusts,  II  Tim.  2:22,  and  to  be  encouraged 
in  the  work  of  Christ,  II  Tim.  1 : 8.  Yet  withal  he  was  a 
worthy  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  Rom.  16:21,  I  Thess.  3:2; 
Phil.  1:1;  2 :  19-21 ;  and  the  beloved  spiritual  son  of  the 
apostle,  I  Tim.  1  :  2 ;  II  Tim.  1 :  2 ;  I  Cor.  4 :  17. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.     Occasion  and  Purpose.     This  letter  was  occasioned 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  TIMOTHY  249 

by  Paul's  necessary  departure  from  Ephesus  for  Mace- 
donia, 1 :  3,  the  apprehension  that  he  might  be  absent  longer 
than  he  at  first  expected,  3:14,  15,  and  the  painful  con- 
sciousness that  insidious  errors  were  threatening  the  Ephe- 
sian  church.  Since  Timothy  was  acquainted  with  these 
heresies,  the  apostle  refers  to  them  only  in  general  terms 
which  convey  no  very  definite  idea  as  to  their  real  character. 
The  persons  who  propagated  them  were  prominent  members 
of  the  church,  possibly  even  office-bearers,  1:6,  7,  20 ; 
3:  1-12;  5:  19-25.  Their  heresy  was  primarily  of  a  Jewish 
character,  1 : 7,  and  probably  resulted  from  an  exaggeration 
of  the  demands  of  the  law,  a  mistaken  application  of  Chris- 
tian ideas  and  a  smattering  of  Oriental  speculation.  They 
claimed  to  be  teachers  of  the  law,  1 : 7,  laid  great  stress  on 
myths  and  genealogies,  1 :  4 ;  4 :  7,  prided  themselves  like  the 
rabbi's  on  the  possession  of  special  knowledge,  6 :  20,  and, 
perhaps  assuming  that  matter  was  evil  or  at  least  the  seat 
of  evil,  they  propagated  a  false  asceticism,  prohibiting  mar- 
riage and  requiring  abstenence  from  certain  foods,  4 :  3, 
and  taught  that  the  resurrection  was  already  past,  most  likely 
recognizing  only  a  spiritual  resurrection,  II  Tim.  2 :  18.  The 
charge  entrusted  to  Timothy  was  therefore  a  difficult  one, 
hence  the  apostle  deemed  it  necessary  to  write  this  Epistle. 

In  connection  with  the  situation  described  the  purpose  of 
Paul  was  twofold.  In  the  first  place  he  desired  to  encourage 
Timothy.  This  brother,  being  young  and  of  a  timid  disposi- 
tion, needed  very  much  the  cheering  word  of  the  apostle. 
And  in  the  second  place  it  was  his  aim  to  direct  Timothy's 
warfare  against  the  false  doctrines  that  were  disseminated  in 
the  church.  Possibly  it  was  also  to  prevent  the  havoc  which 
these  might  work,  if  they  who  taught  them  were  allowed  in 
office,  that  he  places  such  emphasis  on  the  careful  choice  of 
office-bearers,  and  on  the  necessity  of  censuring  them,  should 
they  go  wrong. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  The  Epistle  shows  that  Paul  had 
left  Ephesus  for  Macedonia  with  the  intention  of  returning 
soon.     And  it  was  because  he  anticipated  some  delay  that 


250  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

he  wrote  this  letter  to  Timothy.    Hence  we  may  be  sure  that 
it  was  written  from  some  place  in  Macedonia. 

But  the  time  when  the  apostle  wrote  this  letter  is  not  so 
easily  determined.  On  what  occasion  did  Paul  quit  Ephesus 
for  Macedonia,  leaving  Timothy  behind  ?  Not  after  his  first 
visit  to  Ephesus,  Acts  18:20,  21,  for  on  that  occasion  the 
apostle  did  not  depart  for  Macedonia  but  for  Jerusalem. 
Neither  was  it  when  he  left  Ephesus  on  his  third  missionary- 
journey  after  a  three  years'  residence,  since  Timothy  was 
not  left  behind  then,  but  had  been  sent  before  him  to 
Corinth,  Acts  19:22;  I  Cor.  4:  17.  Some  are  inclined  to 
think  that  we  must  assume  a  visit  of  Paul  to  Macedonia 
during  his  Ephesian  residence,  a  visit  not  recorded  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  But  then  we  must  also  find  room 
there  for  the  apostle's  journey  to  Crete,  since  it  is  improbable 
that  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Titus  was  separated  by  any  great 
interval  of  time  from  I  Timothy.  And  to  this  must  be 
added  a  trip  to  Corinth,  cf.  above  p.  163.  This  theory  is 
very  unlikely  in  view  of  the  time  Paul  spent  at  Ephesus, 
as  compared  with  the  work  he  did  there,  and  of  the  utter 
silence  of  Luke  regarding  these  visits.  We  must  date  the 
letter  somewhere  between  the  first  and  the  second  imprison- 
ment of  Paul.  It  was  most  likely  after  the  apostle's  journey 
to  Spain,  since  on  the  only  previous  occasion  that  he  visited 
Ephesus  after  his  release  he  came  to  that  city  by  way  of 
Macedonia,  and  therefore  would  not  be  likely  to  return 
thither  immediately.  Probably  the  letter  should  be  dated 
about  A.  D.  65  or  66. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

There  was  not  the  slightest  doubt  in  the  ancient  church 
as  to  the  canonicity  of  this  Epistle.  We  find  allusions  more 
or  less  clear  to  its  language  in  Clement  of  Rome,  Poly  carp, 
Hegesippus,  Athenagoras  and  Theophilus.  It  was  contained 
in  the  old  Latin  and  Syriac  Versions  and  referred  to  Paul  by 
the  Muratorian  Fragment.     Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexan- 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  TIMOTHY  251 

dria  and  Tertullian  quote  it  by  name,  and  Eusebius  reckons 
it  among  the  generally  accepted  canonical  writings. 

The  great  abiding  value  of  the  Epistle  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  it  teaches  the  Church  of  all  generations,  how  one, 
especially  an  office-bearer,  should  behave  in  the  house  of 
God,  holding  the  faith,  guarding  his  precious  trust  against 
the  inroads  of  false  doctrines,  combating  the  evil  that  is 
found  in  the  Lord's  heritage,  and  maintaining  good  order 
in  church  life.  "It  witnesses,"  says  Lock  (Hastings  D.  B. 
Art.  I  Timothy)  "that  a  highly  ethical  and  spiritual  concep- 
tion of  religion  is  consistent  with  and  is  safeguarded  by 
careful  regulations  about  worship,  ritual  and  organized 
ministry.  There  is  no  opposition  between  the  outward  and 
the  inward,  between  the  spirit  and  the  organized  body." 


The  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy. 


CONTENTS. 

The  contents  of  this  Epistle  falls  into  three  parts : 

/.  Considerations  to  strengthen  Timothy's  Courage, 
1:1 — 2:13.  After  the  greeting,  1,  2,  the  apostle  urges 
Timothy  to  stir  up  his  ministerial  gift,  to  be  bold  in  suffer- 
ing, and  to  hold  fast  the  truth  entrusted  to  him,  3 — 14,  en- 
forcing these  appeals  by  pointing  to  the  deterrent  example 
of  the  unfaithful  and  the  stimulating  example  of  Onesi- 
phorus,  15 — 18.  Further  he  exhorts  him  to  be  strong  in  the 
power  of  grace,  to  commit  the  true  teaching  to  others,  and 
to  be  ready  to  face  suffering,  2:  1-13. 

//.  Exhortations  primarily  dealing  with  Timothy's 
Teaching,  2 :  lA — 4 :  8.  Timothy  should  urge  Christians  to 
avoid  idle  and  useless  discussions,  and  should  rightly  teach 
the  truth,  shunning  vain  babblings,  14-21.  He  must  also 
avoid  youthful  passions,  foolish  investigations,  and  false 
teachers  who,  for  selfish  purposes,  turn  the  truth  of  God 
into  unrighteousness,  2  :  22 — 3  :  9.  He  is  further  exhorted 
to  abide  loyally  by  his  past  teaching,  knowing  that  sufferings 
will  come  to  every  true  soldier  and  that  deceivers  will  grow 
worse,  10-17;  and  to  fulfil  his  whole  duty  as  an  evangelist 
with  sobriety  and  courage,  especially  since  Paul  is  now  ready 
to  be  offered  up,  4 :  1-8. 

///.  Personal  Reminiscences,  4 :  9-22.  Paul  appeals  to 
Timothy  to  come  to  Rome  quickly,  bringing  Mark  and  also 
taking  his  cloak  and  books,  and  to  avoid  Alexander,  9-15. 
He  speaks  of  his  desertion  by  men,  the  protection  afforded 
him  by  the  Lord,  and  his  trust  for  the  future,  16-18.  With 
special  greetings,  a  further  account  of  his  fellow-laborers, 
and  a  final  salutation  the  apostle  ends  his  letter,  19-22. 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  TIMOTHY  253 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  II  Timothy  is  the  most  personal  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  Doctrinally  it  has  no  great  importance,  though  it 
does  contain  the  strongest  proof-passage  for  the  inspiration 
of  Scripture.  In  the  main  the  thought  centers  about 
Timothy,  the  faithful  co-laborer  of  Paul,  whom  the  apostle 
gives  encouragement  in  the  presence  of  great  difficulties, 
whom  he  inspires  to  noble,  self-denying  efforts  in  the  King- 
dom of  God,  and  whom  he  exhorts  to  fight  worthily  in  the 
spiritual  warfare  against  the  powers  of  darkness,  that  he 
may  once  receive  an  eternal  reward. 

2.  It  is  the  last  Epistle  of  Paul,  the  swan-song  of  the 
great  apostle,  after  a  life  of  devotion  to  a  noble  cause,  a 
life  of  Christian  service.  We  see  him  here  with  work  done, 
facing  a  martyr's  death.  Looking  back  his  heart  is  filled 
with  gratitude  for  the  grace  of  God  that  saved  him  from 
the  abyss  that  yawned  at  his  feet,  that  called  and  qualified 
him  to  be  a  messenger  of  the  cross,  that  protected  him  when 
dangers  were  threatening,  and  that  crowned  his  work  with 
rich  spiritual  fruits.  And  as  he  turns  his  eyes  to  the  future, 
calm  assurance  and  joyous  hope  are  the  strength  of  his  soul, 
for  he  knows  that  the  firm  foundation  of  God  will  stand, 
since  the  Lord  will  punish  the  evil-doers  and  be  the  eternal 
reward  of  his  children.  He  already  has  visions  of  the  heav- 
enly Kingdom,  of  eternal  glory,  of  the  coming  righteous 
Judge,  and  of  the  crown  of  righteousness,  the  blessed  in- 
heritance of  all  those  that  love  Christ's  appearance. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  The  immediate  occasion  for 
writing  this  Epistle  was  the  apostle's  presentiment  of  his 
fast  approaching  end.  He  was  anxious  that  Timothy  should 
come  to  him  soon,  bringing  Mark  with  him.  In  all  probabil- 
ity he  desired  to  give  his  spiritual  son  some  fatherly  advice 
and  some  practical  instruction  before  his  departure.  But 
we  feel  that  this  alone  did  not  call  for  a  letter  such  as  II 
Timothy  really  is.     Another  factor  must  be  taken  in  con- 


254  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

sideration.  Paul  was  not  sure  that  Timothy  would  succeed 
in  reaching  Rome  before  his  death,  and  yet  realized  that  the 
condition  of  the  Ephesian  church,  the  danger  to  which 
Timothy  was  there  exposed,  and  the  importance  of  the  work 
entrusted  to  this  youthful  minister,  called  for  a  word  of 
apostolic  advice,  encouragement  and  exhortation.  It  seems 
that  the  Ephesian  church  was  threatened  by  persecution, 
1:8;  2:3,  12 ;  3:12;  4:5;  and  the  heresy  to  which  the 
apostle  referred  in  his  first  epistle  was  evidently  still  rife 
in  the  circle  of  believers.  There  were  those  who  strove 
about  words,  2 :  14,  were  unspiritual,  2 :  16,  corrupted  in 
mind,  3 : 8,  indulging  in  foolish  and  ignorant  questionings, 
2 :  23,  and  fables,  4 :  4,  tending  to  a  low  standard  of  morality, 
2:19,  and  teaching  that  the  resurrection  was  already  past, 
2:18. 

Hence  the  object  of  the  Epistle  is  twofold.  The  writer 
wants  to  warn  Timothy  of  his  impending  departure,  to  in- 
form him  of  his  past  experiences  at  Rome  and  of  his  present 
loneliness,  and  to  exhort  him  to  come  speedily.  Besides 
this,  however,  he  desired  to  strengthen  his  spiritual  son  in 
view  of  the  deepening  gloom  of  trials  and  persecution  that 
were  threatening  the  church  from  without ;  and  to  fore-arm 
him  against  the  still  sadder  danger  of  heresy  and  apostasy 
that  were  lurking  within  the  fold.  Timothy  is  exhorted  to 
hold  fast  the  faith,  1 :  5,  13 ;  to  endure  hardness  as  a  good 
soldier  of  Jesus  Christ,  2:3-10;  to  shun  every  form  of 
heresy,  2 :  16-18 ;  to  instruct  in  meekness  those  that  with- 
stand the  Gospel,  2 :  24-26 ;  and  to  continue  in  the  things  he 
had  learnt,  3:14-17. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  From  1 :  17  it  is  perfectly  evident 
-that  this  letter  was  written  at  Rome.  The  apostle  was  again 
a  prisoner  in  the  imperial  city.  Though  we  have  no  absolute 
certainty,  we  deem  it  probable  that  he  was  re-arrested  at 
Troas  in  the  year  67.  The  situation  in  which  he  finds  him- 
self at  Rome  is  quite  different  from  that  reflected  in  the 
other  epistles  of  the  captivity.  He  is  now  treated  like  a 
common  criminal,  2:9;  his  Asiatic  friends  with  the  excep- 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  TIMOTHY  255 

tion  of  Onesiphorus  turned  from  him,  1:15;  the  friends 
who  were  with  him  during  his  first  imprisonment  are  absent 
now,  Col.  4:  10-14;  II  Tim.  4:  10-12;  and  the  outlook  of 
the  apostle  is  quite  different  from  that  found  in  Philippians 
and  Philemon.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  just  how  long  the 
apostle  had  already  been  in  prison,  when  he  wrote  the 
Epistle,  but  from  the  fact  that  he  had  had  one  hearing,  4 :  16 
(which  cannot  refer  to  that  of  the  first  imprisonment,  cf. 
Phil,  1  :  7,  12-14),  and  expected  to  be  offered  up  soon,  we 
infer  that  he  composed  the  letter  towards  the  end  of  his 
imprisonment,  i.  e.  in  the  fall  of  A.  D.  67. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  canonicity  of  this  Epistle  has  never  been  questioned 
by  the  Church ;  and  the  testimony  to  its  early  and  general 
use  is  in  no  way  deficient.  There  are  quite  clear  traces  of 
its  language  in  Clement  of  Rome,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin 
Martyr,  The  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  and  Theophilus  of 
Antioch.  The  letter  is  included  in  all  the  MSS.,  the  old 
Versions  and  the  Lists  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  Mura- 
torian  Fragment  names  it  as  a  production  of  Paul,  and  from 
the  end  of  the  second  century  it  is  quoted  by  name. 

The  Epistle  has  some  permanent  doctrinal  value  as  con- 
taining the  most  important  proof-passage  for  the  inspiration 
of  Scripture,  3 :  16,  and  also  abiding  historical  significance 
in  that  it  contains  the  clearest  Scriptural  testimony  to  the 
life  of  Paul  after  his  first  Roman  imprisonment.  But  Lock 
truly  says  that  "its  main  interest  is  one  of  character,  and  two 
portraits  emerge  from  it."  We  have  here  (1)  the  portrait 
of  the  ideal  Christian  minister,  busily  engaged  in  the  work 
of  his  Master,  confessing  His  Name,  proclaiming  His  truth, 
shepherding  His  fold,  defending  his  heritage,  and  battling 
with  the  powers  of  evil;  and  (2)  the  "portrait  of  the  Chris- 
tian minister,  with  his  work  done,  facing  death.  He 
acquiesces  gladly  in  the  present,  but  his  eyes  are  turned 
mainly  to  the  past  or  to  the  future."  (Lock  in  Hastings 
D.  B.  Art.  II  Timothy)  He  is  thankful  for  the  work  he  was 
permitted  to  do,  and  serenely  awaits  the  day  of  his  crowning. 


The  Epistle  to  Titus. 


CONTENTS. 

The  contents  of  this  Epistle  may  be  divided  into  three 
parts : 

/.  Instruction  regarding  the  Appointment  of  Ministers, 
1 :  1-16.  After  the  opening  salutation,  1-4,  the  apostle  re- 
minds Titus  of  his  past  instruction  to  appoint  presbyters,  5. 
He  emphasizes  the  importance  of  high  moral  character  in  an 
overseer,  in  order  that  such  an  office-bearer  may  maintain 
the  sound  doctrine  and  may  refute  the  opponents  that  mis- 
lead others  and,  claiming  to  know  God,  deny  Him  with  their 
words,  6-16. 

//.  Directions  as  to  the  Teaching  of  Titus,  2:  1 — 3:  11. 
Paul  would  have  Titus  urge  all  the  different  classes  that 
were  found  in  the  Cretan  church,  viz.  the  elder  men  and 
women,  the  younger  women  and  men,  and  the  slaves,  to 
regulate  their  life  in  harmony  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Gospel,  since  they  were  all  trained  by  the  saving  grace  of 
God  to  rise  above  sin  and  to  lead  godly  lives,  2:  1-14.  As 
regards  their  relation  to  the  outer  world,  Titus  should  teach 
believers  to  subject  themselves  to  the  authorities,  and  to  be 
gentle  towards  all  men,  remembering  that  God  had  delivered 
them  from  the  old  heathen  vices,  in  order  that  they  should 
set  others  an  example  of  noble  and  useful  lives,  3 :  1-8.  He 
himself  must  avoid  foolish  questionings  and  reject  the  here- 
tics, who  refused  to  listen  to  his  admonition,  9-11. 

///.  Personal  Details,  3:12-15.  Instructing  Titus  to 
join  him  at  Nicopolis  after  Artemus  or  Tychicus  has  come 
to  Crete,  bringing  with  him  Zenos  and  ApoUos,  the  writer 
ends  his  letter  with  a  final  salutation. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  TITUS  257 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  Like  the  other  Pastoral  Epistles  this  letter  is  also  of 
a  personal  nature.  It  was  not  directed  to  any  individual 
church  or  to  a  group  of  churches,  but  to  a  single  person,  one 
of  Paul's  spiritual  sons  and  co-laborers  in  the  work  of  the 
Lord.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not  as  personal  as  II  Timothy, 
but  has  distinctly  a  semi-private  character.  It  is  perfectly 
evident  from  the  Epistle  itself  (cf.  2:  15)  that  its  teaching 
was  also  intended  for  the  church  in  Crete  to  which  Titus 
was  ministering. 

2.  This  letter  is  in  every  way  very  much  like  I  Timothy, 
which  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  two  were  written  about  the 
same  time  and  were  called  forth  by  very  similar  situations. 
It  is  shorter  than  the  earlier  Epistle,  but  covers  almost  the 
same  ground.  We  do  not  find  in  it  any  advance  on  the  doc- 
trinal teachings  of  the  other  letters  of  Paul ;  in  fact  it  con- 
tains very  little  doctrinal  teaching,  aside  from  the  compre- 
hensive statements  of  the  doctrine  of  grace  in  2:  11-14  and 
3 : 4-8.  The  former  of  these  passages  is  a  locus  classicus. 
The  main  interest  of  the  Epistle  is  ecclesiastical  and  ethical, 
the  government  of  the  church  and  the  moral  life  of  its  mem- 
bers receiving  due  consideration. 

THE  PERSON  TO  WHOM  THE  EPISTLE  WAS 
WRITTEN. 

Paul  addressed  the  letter  to  "Titus  mine  own  son  after 
the  common  faith,"  1  : 4.  We  do  not  meet  with  Titus  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  is  all  the  more  remarkable,  since 
he  was  one  of  the  most  trusted  companions  of  Paul.  For 
this  reason  some  surmised  that  he  is  to  be  identified  with 
some  one  of  the  other  co-laborers  of  Paul,  as  f.  i.  Timothy, 
Silas  or  Justus,  Acts  18 :  7.  But  neither  of  these  satisfy  the 
conditions. 

He  is  first  mentioned  in  Gal.  2:  1,  3,  where  we  learn  that 
he  was  a  Greek,  who  was  not  compelled  to  submit  to  circum- 
cision, lest  Paul  should  give  his  enemies  a  handle  against 
himself.     From  Titus  1 : 4  we  infer  that  he  was  one  of  the 


258  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

apostle's  converts,  and  Gal.  2:3  informs  us  that  he  accom- 
panied Paul  to  the  council  of  Jerusalem.  According  to  some 
the  phrase  6  auv  i[L6i  in  this  passage  implies  that  he  was 
also  with  Paul,  when  he  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
but  the  inference  is  rather  unwarranted.  He  probably  bore 
I  Corinthians  to  its  destination,  II  Cor.  2:  13,  and  after  his 
return  to  Paul,  was  sent  to  Corinth  again  to  complete  the 
collection  for  the  saints  in  Judaea,  II  Cor.  8:  16  ff.  Most 
likely  he  was  also  the  bearer  of  II  Corinthians.  When  next 
we  hear  of  him,  he  is  on  the  island  of  Crete  in  charge  of  the 
church(es)  that  had  been  founded  there.  Titus  1:4.  5,  and 
is  requested  to  join  Paul  at  Nicopolis,  3 :  12,  Evidently  he 
was  with  the  apostle  in  the  early  part  of  his  second  imprison- 
ment, but  soon  left  him  for  Dalmatia,  either  at  the  behest, 
or  against  the  desire  of  Paul.  The  traditions  regarding  his 
later  life  are  of  doubtful  value. 

If  we  compare  I  Tim.  4:  12  with  Titus  2:  15,  we  get  the 
impression  that  Titus  was  older  than  his  co-laborer  at  Ephe- 
sus.  The  timidity  of  the  latter  did  not  characterize  the 
former.  While  Timothy  went  to  Corinth,  so  it  seems,  with 
some  hesitation,  I  Cor.  16:  10,  Titus  did  not  flinch  from  the 
delicate  task  of  completing  the  collection  for  the  saints  in 
Judsea,  but  undertook  it  of  his  own  accord,  II  Cor.  8 :  16, 
17.  He  was  full  of  enthusiasm  for  the  Corinthians,  was 
free  from  wrong  motives  in  his  work  among  them,  and  fol- 
lowed in  the  footsteps  of  the  apostle,  II  Cor.  12 :  18. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  The  occasion  for  writing  this 
Epistle  is  found  in  the  desire  of  Paul  that  Titus  should 
come  to  him  in  the  near  future,  and  in  the  condition  of  the 
Cretan  church  (es),  whose  origin  is  lost  in  obscurity.  Prob- 
ably the  island  was  evangelized  soon  after  the  first  Pentecost 
by  those  Cretans  that  were  converted  at  Jerusalem,  Acts 
2:11.  During  the  last  part  of  his  life  Paul  visited  the  island 
and  made  provision  for  the  external  organization  of  the 
church  (es)    there.     When  he   left,  he   entrusted  this   im- 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  TITUS  259 

portant  task  to  his  spiritual  son,  Titus,  1:5.  The  church (es) 
consisted  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  1 :  10,  of  different  ages 
and  of  various  classes,  2 :  1-10.  The  Cretans  did  not  have 
a  very  good  reputation,  1 :  12,  and  some  of  them  did  not 
belie  their  reputed  character,  even  after  they  had  turned  to 
Christ.  Apparently  the  errors  that  had  crept  into  the 
church  (es)  there  were  very  similar  to  those  with  which 
Timothy  had  to  contend  at  Ephesus,  though  probably  the 
Judseistic  element  was  still  more  prominent  in  them,  1 :  10, 
11,  14;  3:9. 

The  object  of  Paul  in  writing  this  letter  is  to  summon 
Titus  to  come  to  him,  as  soon  as  another  has  taken  his 
place ;  to  give  him  directions  regarding  the  ordination  of 
presbyters  in  the  different  cities ;  to  warn  him  against  the 
heretics  on  the  island ;  and  guide  him  in  his  teaching  and  in 
his  dealing  with  those  that  would  not  accept  his  word. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  Respecting  the  time  when  this 
Epistle  was  written  there  is  no  unanimity.  Those  who  be- 
lieve in  the  genuineness  of  the  letter,  and  at  the  same  time 
postulate  but  one  Roman  imprisonment,  seek  a  place  for  it 
in  the  life  of  Paul,  as  we  know  it  from  the  Acts.  According 
to  some  it  was  written  during  the  apostle's  first  stay  at 
Corinth,  from  where,  in  that  case,  he  must  have  made  a  trip 
to  Crete ;  others  think  it  was  composed  at  Ephesus,  after 
Paul  left  Corinth  and  had  on  the  way  visited  Crete.  But 
the  word  "continued"  in  Acts  18:  11  seems  to  preclude  a 
trip  from  Corinth  to  Crete.  Moreover  both  of  these  theories 
leave  Paul's  acquaintance  with  Apollos,  presupposed  in  this 
letter,  unexplained,  3:  13.  Still  others  would  date  the  visit 
to  Crete  and  the  composition  of  this  letter  somewhere  be- 
tween the  years  54-57,  when  the  apostle  resided  at  Ephesus, 
but  this  hypothesis  is  also  burdened  with  insuperable  ob- 
jections. Cf.  above  p.  249.  The  Epistle  must  have  been 
composed  in  the  interval  between  the  first  and  the  second 
imprisonment  of  the  apostle,  and  supposing  the  winter  of 
3:  13  to  be  the  same  as  that  of  II  Tim.  4:21,  probably  in 
the  early  part  of  the  year  67.    We  have  no  means  to  deter- 


260  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

mine,  where  the  letter  was  written,  though  something  can 
be  said  in  favor  of  Ephesus,  cf.  p.  '-^39  above. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  Church  from  the  beginning  accepted  this  Epistle 
as  canonical.  There  are  passages  in  Clement  of  Rome, 
Ignatius,  Barnabas,  Justin  Martyr  and  Theophilus  that  sug- 
gest literary  dependence.  Moreover  the  letter  is  found  in 
all  the  MSS.  and  in  the  old  Latin  and  Syriac  Versions ;  and 
is  referred  to  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment.  Irenaeus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Tertullian  quote  it  by  name. 

The  permanent  value  of  the  letter  is  in  some  respects 
quite  similar  to  that  of  I  Timothy.  It  has  historical  signi- 
ficance in  that  it  informs  us  of  the  spread  of  Christianity 
on  the  island  of  Crete,  a  piece  of  information  that  we  could 
not  gather  from  any  other  Biblical  source.  Like  I  Timothy 
it  emphasizes  for  all  ages  to  com.e  the  necessity  of  church 
organization  and  the  special  qualifications  of  the  office- 
bearers. It  is  unique  in  placing  prominently  before  us  the 
educative  value  of  the  grace  of  God  for  the  life  of  every 
man,  of  male  and  female,  young  and  old,  bond  and  free. 


The  Epistle  to  Philemon. 


CONTENTS. 

We  can  distinguish  three  parts  in  this  brief  letter : 

/.  The  Introduction,  1-7.  This  contains  the  address, 
the  customary  blessing,  and  a  thanksgiving  of  the  apostle 
for  the  charity  of  Philemon,  for  the  increase  of  which  Paul 
hopes,  because  it  greatly  refreshes  the  saints. 

//.  The  Request,  8-21.  Rather  than  command  Phile- 
mon the  apostle  comes  to  him  with  a  request,  viz.  that  he 
receive  back  the  converted  slave  Onesimus  and  forgive  him 
his  wrong-doing.  Paul  enforces  his  request  by  pointing  to 
the  conversion  of  Onesimus,  and  to  his  own  willingness  to 
repay  Philemon  what  he  lost,  though  he  might  ask  retribu- 
tion of  him ;  and  trusts  that  Philemon  will  do  more  than  he 
asks. 

///.  Conclusion,  22-25.  Trusting  that  he  will  be  set 
free,  the  apostle  requests  Philemon  to  prepare  for  him  a 
lodging.  With  greetings  of  his  fellow-laborers  and  a  final 
salutation  he  ends  his  letter. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  This  letter  is  closely  related  to  the  Epistle  that  was 
sent  to  the  Colossian  church.  They  were  composed  at  the 
same  time,  were  sent  to  the  same  city  and,  with  a  single 
exception  (that  of  Justus),  contain  identical  greetings.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  distinguished  from  Colossians  in  that  it 
is  a  private  letter.  Yet  it  is  not  addressed  to  a  single  in- 
dividual, but  to  a  family  and  to  the  believers  at  their  house. 

2.  The  letter  is  further  characterized  by  its  great  deli- 
cacy and  tactfulness.    It  bears  strong  evidence  to  Christian 


262  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

courtesy,  and  has  therefore  been  called  "the  polite  epistle." 
In  it  we  see  Paul,  the  gentleman,  handling  a  delicate  question 
with  consummate  skill.  Though  he  might  command,  he 
prefers  to  request  that  Philemon  forgive  and  receive  again 
his  former  slave.  Tactfully  he  refers  to  the  spiritual  benefit 
that  accrued  from  what  might  be  called  material  loss.  In  a 
delicate  manner  he  reminds  Philemon  of  the  debt  the  latter 
owed  him,  and  expresses  his  confidence  that  this  brother  in 
Christ  would  even  do  more  than  he  requested. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

Marcion  included  this  letter  in  his  Pauline  collection,  and 
the  Muratorian  Fragment  also  ascribes  it  to  Paul.  Tertul- 
lian  and  Origen  quote  it  by  name,  and  Eusebius  reckons  it 
among  the  Pauline  letters. 

Moreover  the  Epistle  has  all  the  marks  of  a  genuine 
Pauline  production.  It  is  self-attested,  contains  the  usual 
Pauline  blessing,  thanksgiving  and  salutation,  reveals  the 
character  of  the  great  apostle  and  clearly  exhibits  his  style. 

Yet  even  this  short  and  admirable  Epistle  has  not  en- 
joyed universal  recognition.  Baur  rejected  it  because  of  its 
close  relation  to  Colossians  and  Ephesians,  which  he  re- 
garded as  spurious.  He  called  it  "the  embryo  of  a  Chris- 
tian romance,"  like  that  of  the  Clementine  Recognitions, 
its  tendency  being  to  show  that  what  is  lost  on  earth  is 
gained  in  heaven.  He  also  objects  to  it  that  it  contains  seven 
words  which  Paul  uses  nowhere  else.  Weizsacker  and 
Pfleiderer  are  somewhat  inclined  to  follow  Baur.  They  find 
proof  for  the  allegorical  character  of  the  letter  in  the  name 
Onesimus  =  profitable,  helpful.  The  latter  thinks  that  this 
note  may  have  accompanied  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  to 
illustrate  by  a  fictitious  example  the  social  precepts  contained 
in  that  letter.  Such  criticism  need  not  be  taken  seriously. 
Hilgenf eld's  dictum  is  that  Baur  has  not  succeeded  in  rais- 
ing his  explanation  to  the  level  of  probability.  And  Renan 
says :    "Paul  alone  can  have  written  this  little  masterpiece." 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON  263 

THE  PERSON  TO  WHOM  THE  LETTER  IS 
WRITTEN. 

The  letter  is  addressed  to  "Philemon  our  dearly  beloved 
and  fellow-laborer,  and  to  our  beloved  Apphia,  and  Archip- 
pus,  our  fellow-soldier,  and  to  the  church  in  thy  house,"  1,  2. 
Little  is  known  of  this  Philemon.  He  was  evidently  an  in- 
habitant of  Colossse,  Col.  4 : 9,  and  apparently  belonged  to 
the  wealthy  class.  He  had  slaves,  received  a  circle  of  friends 
in  his  house,  and  was  able  to  prepare  a  lodging  for  Paul,  22. 
His  munificence  was  generally  known,  5-7,  and  he  made 
himself  useful  in  Christian  service.  He  was  converted  by 
Paul,  19,  most  likely  during  the  apostle's  three  years  resi- 
dence at  Ephesus.  Apphia  is  generally  regarded  as  the 
wife  of  Philemon,  while  many  consider  Archippus  as  their 
son.  We  notice  from  Col.  4:  17  that  the  latter  had  an  office 
in  the  church.  Probably  he  was  temporarily  taking  the  place 
of  Epaphras.  The  expression  "the  church  in  thy  house"  un- 
doubtedly refers  to  the  Christians  of  Colossae  that  gathered 
in  the  dwelling  of  Philemon  for  worship. 

COMPOSITION. 

L  Occasion  and  Purpose.  The  occasion  for  writing  this 
Epistle  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  letter  itself.  Onesimus. 
the  slave  of  Philemon  absconded  and,  so  it  seems,  defrauded 
his  master,  18,  19.  He  fled  to  Rome,  where  in  some  way — it 
is  useless  to  guess  just  how — he  fell  in  with  Paul,  whom  he 
may  have  known  from  the  time  of  his  Ephesian  residence. 
The  apostle  was  instrumental  in  converting  him  and  in  show- 
ing him  the  evil  of  his  way,  10,  and  although  he  would  gladly 
have  retained  him  for  the  work,  sent  him  back  to  Colossae 
in  deference  to  the  claims  of  Philemon.  He  did  not  send 
him  empty-handed,  however,  but  gave  him  a  letter  of 
recommendation,  in  which  he  informs  Philemon  of  the 
change  wrought  in  Onesimus  by  which  the  former  slave  be- 
came a  brother,  bespeaks  for  him  a  favorable  reception  in 
the  family  of  his  master  and  in  the  circle  that  gathered  at 


264 NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

their  house  for  worship,  and  even  hints  at  the  desirability 
of  emancipating  him. 

2.  Time  and  place.  For  the  discussion  of  the  time  and 
place  of  composition  cf,  what  was  said  respecting  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians, 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

This  Epistle  is  rarely  quoted  by  the  early  church  fathers,' 
which  is  undoubtedly  due  to  its  brevity  and  to  its  lack  of 
doctrinal  contents.  The  letter  is  recognized  by  Marcion 
and  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  and  is  contained  in  the  old 
Latin  and  Syriac  Versions.  Tertullian  quotes  it  more  than 
once,  but  no  trace  of  it  is  found  in  Irenaeus  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria.  Eusebius  classes  it  with  the  Homologoumena 
and  Jerome  argues  at  length  against  those  who  refused  to 
accept  it  as  Pauline.  The  Church  never  doubted  its 
canonicity. 

The  permanent  value  of  this  little  letter  is  both  psycho- 
logical and  ethical.  It  shows  us  Paul  as  he  corresponds  in 
a  friendly  way  with  a  brother  in  Christ,  and  thus  gives  us  a 
new  glimpse  of  his  character,  the  character  of  a  perfect 
gentleman,  unobtrusive,  refined,  skillful  and  withal  firm, — a 
character  worthy  of  imitation.  Moreover  it  reveals  to  us 
how  Paul,  in  view  of  the  unity  of  bond  and  free  in  Jesus 
Christ,  deals  with  the  perplexing  question  of  slavery.  He 
does  not  demand  the  abolishment  of  the  institution,  since 
the  time  for  such  a  drastic  measure  had  not  yet  come  ;  but  he 
does  clearly  hint  at  emancipation  as  the  natural  result  of  the 
redemptive  work  of  Christ. 


The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


CONTENTS. 

In  this  Epistle  we  may  distinguish  five  parts. 

/.  The  Superiority  of  Christ  as  Mediator,  1 :  1 — 4 :  16. 
The  writer  begins  by  saying  that  the  New  Testament  revela- 
tion was  mediated  by  the  very  Son  of  God,  who  is  far 
superior  to  the  angels,  1:1-14;  whose  revelation  one  can 
only  neglect  to  the  peril  of  one's  soul,  2 :  1-4,  and  in  whom 
and  through  whom  the  ideal  of  man  is  realized  through  suf- 
fering, 5-18.  Then  he  points  out  that  Christ  is  greater  than 
Moses,  as  the  builder  is  greater  than  the  house  and  the  son 
is  superior  to  the  servant,  3 :  1-6,  wherefore  it  is  necessary 
that  we  should  listen  to  his  voice,  since  unbelief  deprives 
us  of  the  blessings  of  salvation,  as  is  clearly  seen  in  the  his- 
tory of  Israel,  7-19.  They  were  not  brought  into  the  rest 
by  Joshua,  so  that  the  promise  remains  to  be  fulfilled,  and 
we  should  labor  to  enter  into  that  rest,  seeking  strength  in 
our  great  High  Priest,  4:  1-16. 

//.  Christ  the  true  High  Priest,  5  :  1 — 7 :  28.  Like  every 
high  priest  Christ  was  taken  from  among  men  to  represent 
them  in  worship,  and  was  called  by  God,  5:1-5;  but  in  dis- 
tinction from  these  He  was  made  a  Priest  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek,  and  thus  became  the  author  of  eternal  salva- 
tion for  those  that  obey  him,  6-10.  Since  the  readers  were 
not  yet  able  to  understand  all  that  might  be  said  regarding 
the  Priesthood  of  Christ  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  the 
author  exhorts  them  to  press  on  to  more  perfect  knowledge, 
to  beware  of  apostasy,  and  to  be  diligent  to  inherit,  through 
faith  and  patience,  the  promises  of  the  ever  faithful  God, 
5:11 — 6:20.  Returning  now  to  the  subject  in  hand,  the 
writer    describes    the    unique    character    of    Melchizedek, 


266  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

7:  1-10,  and  contrasts  the  priesthood  of  Christ  with  that  of 
the  order  of  Aaron  with  respect  to  fleshly  descent  (Levi — 
Judah),  11-14;  endurance  (temporal — eternal)  15-19; 
solemnity  and  weight  (without  oath — with  oath)  20-22; 
number  (many — one)  23-24;  and  then  argues  the  necessity 
of  such  a  High  Priest  for  us,  25-28. 

///.  Pre-eminence  of  the  New  Covenant  mediated  by 
Jesus  Christ,  8 :  1 — 10 :  18.  As  High  Priest  Christ  is  now 
ministering  in  heaven,  of  which  the  tabernacle  on  earth  was 
but  a  shadow,  since  He  is  the  Mediator,  not  of  the  Old,  but 
of  the  New  Covenant,  8:  1-13.  The  ordained  services  and 
the  sanctuary  of  the  old  dispensation  were  merely  figures 
for  the  time  then  present,  and  pointed  to  the  better  services 
which  Christ,  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Covenant  would  ren- 
der at  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  since  He  would  not  enter 
with  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  but  with  his  own  blood, 
thus  bringing  eternal  redemption,  9 :  1-28.  The  sacrifices  of 
the  old  dispensation  could  not  take  away  sin,  and  therefore 
Christ  ofl:'ered  himself  for  our  purification  and  to  give  us 
access  to  the  throne  of  God,  10:  1-18. 

IV.  Application  of  the  Truths  presented  and  Personal 
Epilogue,  10:19 — 13:25.  The  writer  exhorts  the  readers 
to  draw  near  to  God  with  confidence,  and  warns  them 
against  apostasy,  reminding  them  of  its  dire  consequences 
and  of  their  former  endurance,  and  assuring  them  that  the 
just  shall  live  by  faith,  10:  19-39.  He  illustrates  this  point 
by  presenting  to  their  view  a  long  line  of  heroes  that 
triumphed  in  faith,  11 :  1-40.  In  view  of  these  examples  he 
urges  them  to  endure  chastening  which  is  a  sign  of  their 
sonship  and  ministers  to  their  sanctification,  and  warns  them 
against  despising  the  grace  of  God,  12:1-17.  Since  they 
have  received  far  greater  privileges  than  Old  Testament 
saints,  they  should  strive  to  serve  God  acceptably  with  rever- 
ence and  godly  fear,  18-29.  Then  follow  some  general 
exhortations  respecting  hospitality,  marriage,  contentment, 
the  following  in  the  footsteps  of  their  teachers,  and  the 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  267 

necessity  of  guarding  against  strange  doctrines,  13:1-17; 
after  which  the  writer  closes  the  letter  with  a  few  personal 
notices  and  salutations,  18-25. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  not  the  letter-like 
appearance  of  the  confessedly  Pauline  writings.  It  does  not 
contain  the  name  of  the  author,  nor  that  of  the  addressees. 
And  if  it  were  not  for  a  few  stray  personal  notes,  10 :  34 ; 
13:  18,  25,  and  for  the  greetings  and  salutations  found  at 
the  end,  we  might  regard  this  writing  as  a  treatise  rather 
than  an  Epistle.  Deissmann,  who  emphasizes  the  non- 
literary  character  of  the  admittedly  Pauline  compositions, 
and  insists  that  they  be  looked  upon  as  real  letters,  considers 
this  writing  to  be  an  Epistle  as  distinguished  from  a  letter, 
and  thinks  it  is  very  important  to  recognize  its  literary  char- 
acter. According  to  him  "it  is  historically  the  earliest  exam- 
ple of  Christian  artistic  literature."  Light  from  the  Ancient 
East  p.  64  f . ;  236  f . ;  243. 

2.  The  relation  in  which  the  teaching  of  this  book  stands 
to  that  of  the  Old  Testament  is  unique.  It  does  not  view  the 
Law  as  a  body  of  commandments  imposed  on  the  obedience 
of  man,  but  as  a  system  of  ritual  provided  by  the  mercy  of 
God  ;  and  clearly  reveals  its  insufficiency  as  an  institution  for 
the  removal  of  sin,  since  it  could  only  remove  ceremonial 
defilement  and  could  not  purify  the  heart.  In  harmony  with 
this  divergence  from  the  prevailing  Pauline  conception  of 
the  Law,  it  does  not,  like  the  undoubted  letters  of  Paul,  re- 
gard the  Law  as  an  episode  temporarily  intervening,  on  ac- 
count of  sin,  between  the  promise  and  its  fulfilment ;  but  as 
a  typical  representation,  as  a  primitive  revelation  of  the 
blessings  to  which  the  promise  pointed.  In  it  the  image  of 
the  New  Testament  realities  is  dimly  seen ;  it  is  the  bud  that 
gradually  develops  into  a  beautiful  flower.  The  realities 
that  answer  to  the  shadows  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
pointed  out  in  detail,  and  thereby  this  Epistle  is  for  all  ages 
the  inspired  commentary  on  the  ritual  of  the  Old  Covenant, 


268  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

making  the  pages  of  Leviticus  luminous  with  heavenly  light. 
We  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  terms  type  and  antitype 
are  employed  in  a  rather  unusual  sense  in  this  letter ;  their 
meaning  is  in  a  way  reversed.  The  holy  places  of  the  earthly 
tabernacle  are  called  the  avtiTUTua  of  the  true  and  heavenly, 
9 :  24,  according  to  which  usage  the  latter  are,  of  course,  the 
types  of  the  former,  cf .  8 :  5. 

3.  This  letter  is  peculiar  also  in  the  way  in  which  it 
quotes  the  Old  Testament.  While  in  the  writings  that  bear 
Paul's  name  the  quotations  are  partly  from  the  Hebrew  and 
partly  from  the  Septuagint,  in  this  Epistle  they  are  uni- 
formly derived  from  the  Greek.  Moreover  the  formulae  of 
quotation  are  different  from  those  in  the  other  letters.  While 
these  generally  refer  the  passages  quoted  to  their  human 
authors,  except  in  cases  where  God  speaks  in  the  first  person 
in  the  Old  Testament,  our  Epistle  with  but  few  exceptions 
refers  them  to  the  primary  author,  i.  e.  to  God  or  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  thus  offering  indubitable  proof  of  the  author's  belief 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

4.  The  language  of  this  Epistle  is  the  best  literary  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament.  We  do  not  find  the  author  strug- 
gling, as  it  were,  with  a  scanty  language  to  express  the  abun- 
dance of  the  thoughts  that  are  crowding  in  upon  him.  There 
are  no  broken  constructions,  no  halting  sentences,  and,  al- 
though a  few  parentheses  are  introduced,  they  do  not  disturb 
the  thought,  cf.  11:38;  12:20,  21.  The  sentences  are  all 
evenly  balanced  and  the  style  flows  on  with  great  regularity. 
The  writer  seems  to  have  given  special  attention  to  the 
rhetorical  rhythm  and  equilibrium  of  words  and  sentences. 
Westcott  says :  "The  style  of  the  book  is  characteristically 
Hellenistic,  perhaps  we  may  say,  as  far  as  our  scanty  knowl- 
edge goes,  Alexandrian."    Comm.  p.  LXI. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  constitutes 
a  very  difficult  question.  The  external  testimony  is  of  a 
conflicting  character.    The  oldest  and  most  explicit  tradition 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  269 

is  that  of  Alexandria,  where  Clement  testified  that  the 
Epistle  was  written  by  Paul  in  the  Hebrezv  language  and 
was  translated  by  Luke  into  Greek.  Origen  regards  the 
thoughts  of  the  Epistle  as  Paul's,  but  the  language  as  that 
of  a  disciple  of  the  great  apostle,  and  finally  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  God  only  knows  who  wrote  this  letter.  He 
does  not  make  mention  of  a  Hebrew  original.  Both  Clement 
and  Origen  agree,  however,  in  regarding  the  Greek  Epistle 
as  Pauline  only  in  a  secondary  sense.  In  Italy  and  Western 
Europe  generally  the  letter  was  not  held  to  be  Paul's.  This 
is  the  more  remarkable,  since  we  find  the  first  trace  of  its 
existence  in  the  West,  in  the  writings  of  Clement  of  Rome. 
Hippolytus  and  Irenaeus  were  acquainted  with  it,  but  did 
not  accept  it  as  Paul's ;  Cajus  reckoned  only  thirteen  Pauline 
Epistles  and  Eusebius  says  that  even  in  his  time  the  negative 
opinion  was  still  held  by  some  Romans.  In  North  Africa, 
where  the  Roman  tradition  is  usually  followed,  the  letter  was 
not  regarded  as  the  work  of  Paul.  TertuUian  ascribes  it  to 
Barnabas.  In  the  fourth  century  the  Eastern  tradition  grad- 
ually prevailed  over  the  Western,  especially  through  the 
influence  of  Augustine  and  Jerome,  though  they  felt  by  no 
means  certain  that  Paul  was  the  author.  During  the  Middle 
Ages  this  mooted  question  hardly  ever  came  up  for  discus- 
sion, but  when  the  light  of  the  Reformation  dawned,  doubts 
were  again  expressed  as  to  the  authorship  of  Paul.  Eras- 
mus questioned  whether  Paul  had  written  the  letter ;  Luther 
conjectured  that  Apollos  was  the  writer ;  Calvin  thought  that 
it  might  be  the  work  of  Luke  or  of  Clement ;  and  Beza  held 
that  it  was  written  by  a  disciple  of  Paul.  At  present  there 
are  comparatively  few  that  maintain  the  authorship  of  Paul. 
And  if  we  examine  the  internal  evidence  of  the  Epistle, 
we  find  that  it  points  away  from  Paul.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  its  teaching  is  in  a  general  sense  Pauline,  but  this  does 
not  prove  that  Paul  was  the  author.  There  are  also  some 
expressions  in  the  letter  to  which  parallels  are  found  in  the 
Epistles  of  Paul.  Compare  f .  i.  2 :  14  with  II  Tim.  1 :  10 ; 
I  Cor.  15  :  26 ;— 2 :  8  with  I  Cor.  15  :  27.    But  this  similarity 


270  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

may  find  its  explanation  in  the  author's  acquaintance  with 
the  Pauhne  writings.  The  statement  in  10 :  34  cannot  be 
urged  in  favor  of  Paul,  especially  not,  if  we  adopt  the  read- 
ing TOi?  Se(j[x(otg  auvexaGnia-axs,  in  which  almost  all  the 
critical  editors  concur,  and  which  is  certainly  favored  by  the 
context.  The  expression  in  13:  19  does  not  prove  that  the 
writer  was  a  prisoner,  when  he  wrote  these  words,  much 
less  that  he  was  Paul.  Neither  does  the  notice  respecting 
Timothy  in  13 :  23  necessarily  point  to  the  apostle,  for  some 
of  the  older  companions  of  Paul  might  have  made  that  same 
statement.  Moreover  we  know  of  no  time  in  the  life  of  Paul 
when  Timothy  was  a  prisoner.  If  there  were  other  positive 
evidence  for  the  Pauline  authorship,  some  of  these  supposed 
criteria  might  serve  as  corroborative  proofs,  but  such  evi- 
dence is  not  forthcoming.  The  main  features  of  the  Epistle 
are  such  as  to  discredit  the  authorship  of  Paul:  (1)  The 
letter,  in  distinction  from  the  Pauline  Epistles,  is  entirely 
anonymous.  It  contains  neither  the  name  of  the  author  nor 
that  of  the  addressees.  Moreover  the  customary  blessing 
and  thanksgiving  are  altogether  wanting.  (2)  In  2:3  the 
writer  clearly  distinguishes  himself  and  his  hearers  from 
those  who  heard  the  Lord,  i.  e.  from  his  immediate  disciples 
and  apostles.  Would  Paul  say  that  he  had  heard  the  word 
of  the  Gospel  only  from  the  immediate  followers  of  the 
Lord,  and  not  of  the  Lord  himself?  The  assumption  does 
not  seem  reasonable  in  view  of  Gal.  1  :  12.  (3)  Though  the 
teaching  of  the  Epistle  is  in  full  harmony  with  that  of  Paul, 
yet  it  does  not  reveal  the  usual  trend  of  Paul's  reasoning. 
As  Bruce  points  out  (Hastings  D.  B.  Art.  Hebrews,  Epistle 
to),  there  is  an  entire  absence  of  the  Pauline  antitheses  law 
and  grace,  faith  and  works,  flesh  and  spirit ;  while  there  are 
found  instead  the  antitheses  of  shadow  and  reality,  type  and 
antitype.  (4)  While  Paul  is  wont  to  take  some  of  his  quo- 
tations from  the  Hebrew  and  often  quotes  from  memory, 
the  writer  of  this  Epistle  always  derives  his  quotations  from 
the  Septaugint,  and  with  such  exactness  that  he  seems  to 
have  had  the  manuscript  before  him.    He  does  not  like  Paul 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  271 

refer  his  quotations  to  the  human  author,  but  to  the  auctor 
primarius.  And  instead  of  the  Pauhne  formulae  of  quota- 
tion, Y^TfpaxTOft  or  T]  '{pa<fri  Xi'^si,  he  often  employs  [xapxupet 
or  <pY]a(.  (5)  There  is  also  a  great  difference  in  the  names 
ascribed  to  the  Mediator.  In  the  writings  of  Paul  we  find 
the  names,  Christ,  the  Lord,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  very  seldom 
the  simple  Jesus.  In  our  Epistle,  on  the  other  hand,  Jesus 
is  the  regular  name  for  the  Saviour;  Jesus  Christ  is  used 
three  times,  the  Lord,  twice,  but  the  full  Pauline  name,  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  wanting  altogether.  (6)  The  strongest 
proof  against  the  Pauline  authorship  is  generally  considered 
to  be  the  argument  from  style.  Says  Dr.  Salmon :  "There 
is  here  none  of  the  ruggedness  of  St.  Paul,  who  never  seems 
to  be  solicitous  about  forms  of  expression,  and  whose 
thoughts  come  pouring  out  so  fast  as  to  jostle  one  another 
in  the  struggle  for  utterance.     This  is  a  calm  composition, 

exhibiting  sonorous  words  and  well  balanced  sentences. 

I  have  already  shown  that  I  do  not  ascribe  to  Paul  any  rigid 
uniformity  of  utterance,  and  that  I  am  not  tempted  to  deny 
a  letter  to  be  his  merely  because  it  contains  a  number  of 
words  and  phrases  which  are  not  found  in  his  other  composi- 
tions ;  but  in  this  case  I  find  myself  unable  to  assert  the 
Pauline  authorship  in  the  face  of  so  much  unlikeness,  in  the 
structure  of  sentences,  in  the  general  tone  of  the  Epistle,  in 
the  general  way  of  presenting  doctrines,  and  in  other  points 
that  I  will  not  delay  to  enumerate."    Introd.  p.  464  f. 

In  view  of  all  the  foregoing  it  is  all  but  certain  that  Paul 
did  not  write  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  But  now  the  ques- 
tion naturally  arises :  Who  did  ?  Several  answers  have 
given,  as  Barnabas  (Tertullian),  Luke  or  Clement  (Calvin), 
Apollos  (Luther),  Silas  (Bohme,  Godet),  (Aquila  and) 
Priscilla  (Harnack),  of  which  only  two  are  at  present  seri- 
ously considered,  viz.  Barnabas  and  Apollos,  though  the 
suggestion  of  Harnack  has  found  favor  with  some.  Renan, 
Hausrath,  Weiss,  Salmon  and  Barth  accept  the  authorship 
of   Barnabas,   relying  especially   on   the    facts :      ( 1 )    that 


272  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Tertullian  points  to  him  as  the  author,  thereby  transmitting 
not  only  his  own  private  opinion,  but  the  North  African 
tradition;  (2)  that  Barnabas  was  an  apostoHc  man  and  as  a 
Levite  would  be  well  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  ritual ;  and 
(3)  that,  as  an  inhabitant  of  the  island  Cyprus,  he  would 
in  all  probability  have  been  subject  to  the  influence  of  Alex- 
andrian culture.  On  the  other  hand,  Liinemann,  Farrar, 
Alford  and  Zahn  hold  that  Apollos  best  answers  the  require- 
ments, since  (1)  he  was  a  man  of  fine  Greek  culture;  (2) 
was  well  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Paul;  and  (3)  as 
a  native  of  Alexandria  was  deeply  embued  with  the  thoughts 
of  the  Alexandrian  school.  But  it  has  been  objected  to 
Barnabas  that  he  could  not  reckon  himself  to  the  second 
generation  of  Christians,  2:3;  and  that  he  certainly  knew 
Hebrew,  with  which,  so  it  seems,  the  author  of  this  Epistle 
was  not  acquainted ; — and  to  Apollos,  that  there  is  no  tradi- 
tion whatever  connecting  his  name  with  the  Epistle  ;  and  that 
the  historical  allusions  in  13:  18-24  have  no  point  of  contact 
in  the  life  of  Apollos  as  we  know  it  from  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  If  we  had  to  choos6  between  the  two,  Barnabas 
would  be  our  choice,  but  we  prefer  with  Moll,  Westcott, 
Dods,  Baljon  and  Bruce  (Hastuigs  D.  B.)  to  confess  our 
ignorance  on  this  point  and  to  abide  by  the  dictum  of  Origen. 
The  general  thought  of  the  Epistle  is  Pauline,  but  God  only 
knows  who  wrote  it. 

DESTINATION. 

Under  this  head  we  must  consider  two  questions:  1. 
Was  the  letter  written  for  Jewish  or  for  Gentile  Christians  ? 
2.    Where  were  the  first  readers  located? 

1.  Until  a  comparatively  recent  date  the  general  opinion 
was  that  this  Epistle  was  composed  for  Jewish  Christians. 
Of  late,  however,  some  scholars,  as  Schiirer,  Weizsacker, 
Von  Soden,  Jiilicher  and  McGilTert  reached  the  opposite 
conclusion.  They  argue  that  the  fundamentals  enumerated 
in  6:  1,  2  are  such  as  were  suitable  only  to  Gentile  catechu- 
mens ;  that  the  expression  "the  living  God"  in  9 :  14  implies 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  273 

a  contrast  between  the  true  God  and  pagan  idols ;  and  that 
the  exhortations  at  the  end  of  the  Epistle  were  more  appro- 
priate to  Gentile  than  to  Jewish  Christians.  From  these 
passages  it  has  been  argued  with  great  ingenuity  that  the 
original  readers  were  Christians  of  the  Gentiles ;  but  they 
are  also  susceptible  of  a  plausible  interpretation  on  the  oppo- 
site view.  Cf.  the  Commentaries  and  also  Dods,  Exp.  Gk. 
Test.  IV  p.  231.  It  seems  preferable  to  hold  that  the  first 
readers  were  of  Jewish  extraction.  In  support  of  this  theory 
we  cannot  rely  on  the  title  rcpoq  'E^pat'oq,  because  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  this,  though  it  can  be  traced  to  the  second 
century,  is  not  original.  Yet  it  does  express  the  early  con- 
viction of  the  Church  that  the  letter  was  destined  first  of  all 
for  Jewish  Christians.  The  general  features  of  the  letter 
point  in  the  same  direction.  The  Epistle  presupposes  that 
its  readers  are  in  danger  of  a  relapse  into  Judaeism ;  and  its 
symbolism,  based  entirely  on  the  tabernacle  and  its  services, 
is  peculiarly  adapted  to  converted  Jews.  The  whole  Epistle 
has  a  Jewish  physiognomy.  With  Bruce  we  say :  "If  the 
readers  were  indeed  Gentiles,  they  were  Gentiles  so  com- 
pletely disguised  in  Jewish  dress  and  wearing  a  mask  with 
so  pronounced  Jewish  features,  that  the  true  nationality  has 
been  hidden  for  nineteen  centuries.    Hastings  D.  B. 

2.  But  where  must  we  look  for  the  first  readers  ?  Some 
scholars,  regarding  this  writing  as  a  treatise,  are  of  the  opin- 
ion that  it  was  not  intended  for  any  definite  locality,  but  for 
Christians  in  general,  (Lipsius,  Reuss)  ;  this  opinion  cannot 
pass  muster,  however,  in  view  of  the  many  passages  that 
have  no  meaning  unless  they  are  addressed  to  a  definite 
circle  of  Christians,  f.  i.  5:11,  12;  6:9,  10;  10:32;  12:4. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  impossible  to  determine  with  certainty 
the  exact  locality  in  which  the  readers  were  found.  The 
four  places  that  received  the  most  prominent  consideration 
in  this  connection  are  Alexandria,  Antioch  (in  Syria),  Rome 
and  Jerusalem,  of  which,  it  would  appear,  the  choice  really 
lies  between  the  last  two.  The  position  that  the  letter  was 
sent  to  the  Jewish  Christians  of  Jerusalem   or  of   entire 


274  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Judaea,  is  defended  by  Moll,  Liinemann,  Salmon,  Weiss  and 
Westcott,  and  is  supported  by  the  following  considerations : 
(1)  The  name  'E^patoq,  embodying  an  early  tradition,  cer- 
tainly fits  them  better  than  it  does  Christians  of  any  other 
community.  (2)  They  were  the  most  likely  to  develop  great 
love  for  the  Jewish  ritual  and  to  be  exposed  to  danger  from 
these  quarters.  (3)  Their  church (es)  was  (were)  well 
nigh  purely  Jewish,  which  best  accords  with  the  total  ab- 
sence of  any  reference  to  Gentile  Christians  in  the  Epistle. 
(4)  They  would  certainly  understand  the  symbolism  of  the 
letter  far  better  than  the  Christians  of  the  diaspora.  (5) 
A  passage  like  13:  12,  13  has  a  peculiar  appropriateness,  if 
it  was  written  to  them.  The  objections  are  urged  against 
this  hypothesis,  however,  that  the  passages  3 : 2  and  5 :  12 
are  hardly  applicable  to  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  or 
Judsea ;  that  these,  rather  than  exercise  liberality,  6 :  10, 
were  continually  the  objects  of  charity;  that  the  letter  was 
written  in  Greek  and  not  in  Hebrew ;  and  that,  as  far  as  we 
know,  Timothy  stood  in  no  particular  relation  to  the  Jeru- 
salem church.  Many  present  day  scholars,  such  as  Alford, 
Zahn,  Baljon,  Dods,  Holtzmann,  Jiilicher  and  Von  Soden 
fixed  on  Rome  as  the  destination  of  this  letter.  In  favor  of 
this  they  urge :  (1)  The  greeting  of  13  :  24  is  evidently  one 
of  such  as  had  gone  forth  from  Italy,  to  their  old  friends  at 
home.  (2)  The  first  traces  of  the  use  of  this  Epistle 
are  found  in  the  writings  of  Clement  and  in  the  Shepherd 
of  Hermas,  both  issuing  from  Rome.  (3)  The  term 
YjYOujjievot,  13:7,  17,  24  was  not  in  vogue  in  the  Pauline 
churches,  but  was  used  at  Rome,  since  Clement  speaks  of 
TCpoTiYOupi,£vot.  (4)  The  persecutions  mentioned  in  10:32- 
34  probably  refer  to  those  of  Nero  and  his  predecessors. 
But  this  theory  is  burdened  with  the  objections ;  that  it  was 
exactly  at  Rome  that  the  canonicity  of  the  letter  was  ques- 
tioned for  centuries ;  that  the  congregation  at  Rome  was 
primarily  Gentile-Christian  (which  Zahn  denies,  however)  ; 
and  that  the  words  of  12:4  were  hardly  applicable  to  the 
Christians  at  Rome   after  the   Neronian   persecution.     To 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  275 

our  mind  the  first  theory  deserves  the  preference,  unless  we 
are  prepared  to  admit  that  the  Epistle  was  written  to  Gentile 
Christians. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  This  letter  was  occasioned 
by  the  danger  of  apostasy  that  threatened  the  readers.  For 
a  time  they  had  professed  Christianity,  5 :  12,  and  for  the 
sake  of  it  had  endured  persecution,  and  had  even  joyfully 
borne  the  spoiling  of  their  goods,  10 :  32-34.  But  they  were 
disappointed,  so  it  seems,  in  two  respects.  In  the  first  place 
in  their  expectation  of  the  speedy  return  of  Christ  to  trimph 
over  his  enemies  and  to  transform  the  affliction  of  his  fol- 
lowers into  everlasting  bliss.  Christ  remained  hidden  from 
their  view  and  their  sufferings  continued,  yea  even  increased 
in  severity.  In  the  encircling  gloom  they  had  no  visible  sup- 
port for  their  faith.  And  in  the  second  place  they  were  dis- 
appointed in  the  attitude  their  own  people  took  to  the  new 
religion.  For  a  time  they  had  combined  their  Christian  ser- 
vices with  the  worship  of  their  fathers,  but  it  became  ever 
increasingly  evident  that  the  Jews  as  a  people  would  not 
accept  Christ.  Their  brethren  according  to  the  flesh  per- 
sisted in  their  opposition  and  waxed  ever  more  intolerant 
of  the  followers  of  Jesus.  The  time  was  fast  approaching, 
when  these  would  have  to  break  with  the  ministrations  of 
the  temple  and  look  elsewhere  for  the  support  of  their  faith. 
Hence  they  had  become  feeble,  12 :  12,  had  ceased  to  make 
progress,  5 :  12,  were  inclined  to  unbehef ,  3 :  12,  and  in  dan- 
ger of  falling  away,  6 :  4-6.  Returning  to  Jewry,  they  might 
escape  the  persecution  to  which  they  were  subjected,  and 
enjoy  their  former  privileges. 

The  writer  desires  to  warn  them  against  the  danger  to 
which  they  were  exposed,  and  to  exhort  them  to  remain 
loyal  to  their  Christian  standard.  In  order  to  do  this  he 
points  out  by  way  of  contrast  the  true  nature  and  intrinsic 
worth  of  the  Christian  religion.  The  Old  Testament  service 
of  God  contained  but  the  shadows  of  the  New  Testament 


276  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

realities.  Christ  is  higher  than  the  angels,  ch.  1,  is  greater 
than  Moses,  ch.  3,  is  our  only  true  High  Priest,  who  through 
suffering  opened  up  the  way  to  heaven  and  gives  us  free 
unrestricted  access  to  God,  chs.  5 — 10.  He  was  perfected 
through  sufferings,  that  He  might  sympathize  with  his  fol- 
lowers in  their  trials  and  afflictions,  2:  10,  17,  18;  4:  15,  and 
might  lead  them  through  suffering  to  glory.  If  He  is  now 
invisible  to  the  eye,  it  is  only  because  He  has  entered  the 
sanctuary,  where  He  continually  ministers  to  the  spiritual 
needs  of  his  followers,  and  insures  them  free  access  to  the 
throne  of  God,  4 :  16 ;  6 :  18-20 ;  9 :  24 ;  10 :  18-22.  He  may 
seem  distant,  yet  He  is  near,  and  they  who  believe  can  en- 
joy his  presence  and  strength  through  faith.  That  is  their 
true  support  in  time  of  need,  ch.  11,  12:  1,  2.  And  though 
He  tarry  for  a  while,  He  will  surely  come  in  due  time  to 
lead  his  children  to  glory.  They  should  willingly  go  forth 
without  the  camp,  bearing  his  reproach,  since  they  enjoy 
far  greater  privileges  than  the  Old  Testament  saints  and 
will  at  last  enter  their  eternal  inheritance. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  It  is  not  easy  to  determine  the  date 
of  this  letter,  since  it  contains  no  definite  notes  of  time.  The 
majority  of  scholars  agree  in  placing  it  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  Thus  Moll,  Kurtz,  Hilgenfeld,  Reuss, 
Davidson,  Weiss,  Godet,  Westcott,  Salmon,  Bruce,  Barth, 
Dods.  Others,  however,  as  Baur,  Kluge,  Zahn,  Meijboom, 
Volkmar  and  Hausrath  bring  it  down  to  a  later  date.  To 
our  mind  the  evidence  favors  a  date  before  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  for  (1)  Though  it  is  true  that  the  author 
does  not  speak  of  the  temple  but  of  the  tabernacle,  the  dan- 
ger to  which  the  Hebrew  Christians  were  exposed  seems  to 
imply  that  the  temple  services  were  still  carried  on.  (2) 
If  the  Jewish  ritual  had  already  ceased,  it  is  strange  that 
the  writer  does  not  refer  to  this,  when  he  describes  the  tran- 
sitory character  of  the  old  dispensation.  And  (3)  the  pres- 
ent tense  used  by  the  writer  in  the  description  of  the  Jewish 
services,  8:  4  f. ;  9:  6,  9  (cf.  Gk.)  ;  10:  1  ff. ;  13:  10  creates 
the  presumption  that  the  ministry  of  the  temple  was  still 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  277 

continued.  It  is  true  that  parallels  to  such  presents  use  of 
past  events  can  be  pointed  out  in  Clement  of  Rome.  But  as 
a  rule  the  use  of  the  present  implies  the  existence  of  the 
subject  spoken  of,  at  the  time  of  the  speaker;  and  the  ques- 
tion of  10 : 2,  "Else  would  they  not  have  ceased  to  be 
offered  ?"  is  certainly  difficult  to  interpret  on  any  other  view. 
It  is  not  possible  to  say,  how  long  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  the  Epistle  was  written,  but  from  the  solemn  tone 
of  the  writer,  and  from  the  fact  that,  according  to  him,  the 
readers  saw  the  day  of  the  Lord  approaching,  10 :  25,  we 
infer  that  it  was  but  shortly  before  that  great  catastrophe. 
Cf .  also  12 :  26,  27.  We  shall  not  go  far  wrong,  if  we  date 
the  Epistle  about  the  year  69. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  letter  was  not  regarded  as  canonical  in  the  Western 
church  until  the  fourth  century  ;  in  the  Eastern  church,  how- 
ever, the  recognition  of  its  apostolicity  and  canonicity  went 
hand  in  hand.  Clement  of  Alexandria  often  quotes  the  let- 
ter as  canonical,  and  Origen  does  sometimes,  though  he  felt 
uncertain  as  to  its  Pauline  authorship.  The  Epistle  is  found 
in  the  Peshito,  but  it  is  uncertain,  whether  it  also  had  a  place 
in  the  earliest  Syriac  translation.  From  the  fourth  century 
the  Western  church  also  admitted  its  canonical  authority. 
The  intrinsic  value  of  the  letter  naturally  commended  it  as 
authoritative  and  as  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God.  Augustine 
and  Jerome  regarded  it  as  canonical,  though  they  still  had 
scruples  about  the  authorship  of  Paul;  and  it  was  included 
in  the  Lists  authorized  by  the  Councils  of  Hippo  in  393  and 
of  Carthage  in  397  and  419.  From  that  time  the  Church 
did  not  again  question  the  canonical  authority  of  the  Epistle 
until  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  when  some  Lutheran 
theologians  had  serious  doubts. 

The  permanent  value  of  this  Epistle  lies  especially  in  two 
facts,  which  may  be  said  to  imply  a  third.  In  the  first  place 
it  brings  out,  as  no  other  New  Testament  book  does,  the 
essential  unity  of  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  reli- 


278  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

gions.  They  are  both  from  God  ;  they  both  center  in  Christ ; 
they  both  pertain  to  the  same  spiritual  verities ;  and  they 
both  aim  at  bringing  man  to  God.  In  the  second  place  the 
Epistle  emphasizes  the  difference  between  the  two  dispensa- 
tions, the  one  containing  the  shadows,  the  other  the  corres- 
ponding realities ;  the  services  of  the  one  being  earthly  and 
therefore  carnal  and  temporal,  those  of  the  other  being 
heavenly  and  therefore  spiritual  and  abiding ;  the  ministry 
of  the  one  effecting  only  ceremonial  purity  and  union  with 
God,  that  of  the  other  issuing  in  the  purification  of  the  soul 
and  in  spiritual  communion  with  God  in  heaven.  And  be- 
cause the  letter  so  presents  the  relation  of  the  Old  Covenant 
to  the  New,  it  is  an  inspired  commentary  on  the  entire 
Mosaic  ritual. 


The  General  Epistle  of  James. 


CONTENTS. 

There  are  no  clearly  defined  parts  in  this  Epistle ;  hence 
no  classification  of  its  contents  is  attempted.  After  the 
opening  salutation  the  writer  points  out  the  significance  of 
temptation  in  the  life  of  his  readers,  exhorts  them  to  ask  in 
faith  for  the  wisdom  needed  in  bearing  them  and  warns 
them  not  to  refer  their  inward  temptations  to  God,  1 :  1-18. 
Then  he  admonishes  them  to  receive  the  Word  in  all  humil- 
ity and  to  carry  it  out  in  action,  19-27.  He  warns  them 
against  that  respect  of  persons  that  reveals  itself  in  favoring 
the  rich  at  the  expense  of  the  poor,  reminding  them  of  the 
fact  that  he  who  violates  the  law  in  one  point  breaks  the 
whole  law ;  2 :  1-13 ;  and  asserts  that  it  is  foohsh  to  trust  to 
a  faith  without  works,  since  this  is  dead,  14-26.  A  warn- 
ing against  rash  teaching  and  reproving  follows,  based  on 
the  difficulty  of  controlling  the  tongue,  which  is  yet  of  the 
very  greatest  importance,  3 :  1-12.  Wisdom  from  above  is 
commended  to  the  readers,  since  the  wisdom  of  this  world 
is  full  of  bitter  envy  and  works  confusion  and  evil,  while 
heavenly  wisdom  is  plenteous  in  mercy  and  yields  good 
fruits,  13-18.  The  author  then  reprimands  the  readers  for 
their  quarrelsomeness,  which  results  from  a  selfishness  and 
lust  that  infects  even  one's  prayers  and  renders  them  futile ; 
and  exhorts  them  to  humble  themselves  before  God,  4:  1-12. 
He  condemns  those  who,  in  the  pride  of  possession,  forget 
their  dependence  on  God,  and  denounces  the  rich  that  op- 
press and  rob  the  poor,  4:  13 — 5:6;  after  which  he  urges 
the  brethren  to  be  patient,  knowing  the  Lord  is  at  hand,  7- 
11.  Finally  he  warns  his  readers  against  false  swearing, 
gives  special  advice  to  the  sick,  exhorts  them  all  to  pray  for 


280  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

one  another,  reminding  them  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  and 
of  the  blessedness  of  turning  a  sinner  from  his  sinful  way, 
12-20. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  From  a  literary  point  of  view  the  Epistle  of  James  is 
quite  different  from  those  of  Paul.  The  latter  are  real  let- 
ters, which  cannot  be  said  of  this  Epistle.  There  is  no  bene- 
diction at  the  beginning,  nor  any  salutation  or  greeting  at  the 
end.  Moreover  it  contains  very  little  that  points  to  definite 
historical  circumstances  such  as  are  known  to  us  from  other 
sources.  Zahn  calls  this  Epistle,  "eine  ...  in  schriftHche 
Form  gefasste  Ansprache."  Einl.  I  p.  73.  Barth  speaks  of 
it  as,  "eine  Sammlung  von  Ansprachen  des  Jakobus  an  die 
Gemeinde  zu  Jerusalem,"  which,  he  thinks  were  taken  down 
by  a  hearer  and  sent  to  the  Jewish  Christians  of  the  diaspora. 
Einl.  p.  140.  And  Deissmann  says :  "The  Epistle  of  James 
is  from  the  beginning  a  little  work  of  literature,  a  pamphlet 
addressed  to  the  whole  of  Christendom,  a  veritable  Epistle 
(as  distinguished  from  a  letter).  The  whole  of  the  con- 
tents agrees  therewith.  There  is  none  of  the  unique  detail 
peculiar  to  the  situation,  such  as  we  have  in  the  letters  of 
Paul,  but  simply  general  questions,  most  of  them  still  con- 
ceivable under  the  present  conditions  of  church  life."  Light 
from  the  Ancient  East  p.  235. 

2.  The  contents  of  the  Epistle  are  not  doctrinal  but 
ethical.  The  writer  does  not  discuss  any  of  the  great  truths 
of  redemption,  but  gives  moral  precepts  for  the  life  of  his 
readers.  There  is  no  Christological  teaching  whatever,  the 
name  of  Christ  being  mentioned  but  twice,  viz.  1:1;  2:1. 
Beischlag  correctly  remarks  that  it  is  "so  wesentlich  noch 
Lehre  Christi  und  so  wenig  noch  Lehre  von  Christo."  The 
letter  may  be  called,  the  Epistle  of  the  Royal  Law,  2 :  8.  The 
emphasis  does  not  rest  on  faith,  but  on  the  works  of  the 
law,  which  the  writer  views,  not  in  its  ceremonial  aspect, 
but  in  its  deep  moral  significance  and  as  an  organic  whole, 
so  that  transgressing  a  single  precept  is  equivalent  to  a  vio- 


THE  GENERAL  EPISLTE  OF  JAMES  281 

lation  of  the  whole  law.  The  essential  element  of  life  ac- 
cording to  the  law  is  a  love  that  reveals  itself  in  grateful 
obedience  to  God  and  in  self-denying  devotion  to  one's 
neighbor. 

3.  Some  scholars,  as  f.  i.  Spitta,  claim  that  this  Epistle 
is  really  not  a  Christian  but  a  Jewish  writing ;  but  the  con- 
tents clearly  prove  the  contrary.  Yet  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  Epistle  has  a  somewhat  Jewish  complexion.  While 
the  writer  never  once  points  to  the  examplary  life  of  Christ, 
he  does  refer  to  the  examples  of  Abraham,  Rahab,  Job  and 
Elijah.  In  several  passages  he  reveals  his  dependence  on 
the  Jewish  Chokmah  literature,  on  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  and  on  the  words  of  Jesus  generally ;  compare  1 : 2 
with  Matt.  5  :  12 ;— 1 :  4  with  Matt.  5  :  48 ;— 1 :  5  with  Matt. 
7:7;— 1:6  with  Mark  11:23;— 1:22  with  Matt.  7:24;— 
2:8  with  Mark  12:31;— 2:13  with  Matt.  5:7;  18:33;— 
4 :  10  with  Matt.  23  :  12 ;  etc.  Moreover  the  author  does  not 
borrow  his  figurative  language  from  the  social  and  civil  in- 
stitutions of  the  Greek  and  Roman  world,  as  Paul  often 
does,  but  derives  it,  like  the  Lord  himself  had  done,  from 
the  native  soil  of  Palestine,  when  he  speaks  of  the  sea,  1:6; 
3  :  4  ;  of  the  former  and  the  latter  rain,  5  :  7  ;  of  the  vine  and 
the  fig-tree,  3 :  12 ;  of  the  scorching  wind,  1:11;  and  of  salt 
and  bitter  springs,  3  :  11,  12. 

4.  The  Epistle  is  written  in  exceptionally  good,  though 
Hellenistic  Greek.  The  vocabulary  of  the  author  is  rich  and 
varied,  and  perfectly  adequate  to  the  expression  of  his  lofty 
sentiments.  His  sentences  are  not  characterized  by  great 
variation  ;  yet  they  have  none  of  the  utter  simplicity,  border- 
ing on  monotony,  that  marks  the  writings  of  John.  The 
separate  thoughts  are  very  clearly  expressed,  but  in  certain 
instances  there  is  some  difficulty  in  tracing  their  logical 
sequence.  We  find  some  examples  of  Hebrew  parallelism 
especially  in  the  fourth  chapter;  downright  Hebraisms, 
however  are  very  few,  cf.  the  adjectival  genitive  in  1:25, 
and  the  instrumental  ^z/  in  3 : 9. 


282  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

AUTHORSHIP. 

According  to  external  testimony  James,  the  brother  of 
the  Lord,  is  the  author  of  this  Epistle.  Origen  is  the  first 
one  to  quote  it  by  name,  and  it  is  only  in  Rufinus  Latin 
translation  of  his  works  that  the  author  is  described  as, 
"James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord."  Eusebius  mentions 
James,  the  brother  of  Christ,  as  the  reputed  author,  remark- 
ing, however,  that  the  letter  was  considered  spurious. 
Jerome,  acknowledging  its  authenticity,  says :  "James, 
called  the  Lord's  brother,  surnamed  the  Just,  wrote  but  one 
Epistle,  which  is  among  the  seven  catholic  ones. 

The  author  simply  names  himself,  "James  a  servant  of 
God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  1:1,  thus  leaving  the 
question  of  his  identity  still  a  matter  of  conjecture,  since 
there  were  other  persons  of  that  name  in  the  apostolic 
Church.  It  is  generally  admitted,  however,  that  there  is  but 
one  James  that  meets  the  requirements,  viz.  the  brother  of 
the  Lord,  for:  (1)  The  writer  was  evidently  a  man  of 
great  authority  and  recognized  as  such  not  only  by  the  Jews 
in  Palestine  but  also  by  those  of  the  diaspora.  There  is  only 
one  James  of  whom  this  can  be  said.  While  James,  the 
brother  of  John,  and  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus  soon  disap- 
pear from  view  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  this  James 
stands  out  prominently  as  the  head  of  the  Jerusalem  church. 
During  the  Lord's  public  ministry  he  did  not  yet  believe  in 
Christ,  John  7 :  5.  Probably  his  conversion  was  connected 
with  the  special  appearance  of  the  Lord  to  him  after  the 
resurrection,  I  Cor.  15:7.  In  the  Acts  we  soon  meet  him 
as  a  man  of  authority.  When  Peter  had  escaped  out  of 
prison,  after  James  the  brother  of  John  had  been  killed,  he 
says  to  the  brethren :  "Go,  show  these  things  to  James," 
Acts  12:  17.  Paul  says  that  he,  on  his  return  from  Arabia, 
went  to  Jerusalem  and  saw  only  Peter  and  James,  the  Lord's 
brother,  Gal.  1  :  18,  19.  On  the  following  visit  James, 
Cephas  and  John,  who  seemed  to  be  pillars,  gave  Paul  and 
Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  Gal.  2 :  9.    Still  later 


THE  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  283 

certain  emissaries  came  from  James  to  Antioch  and  appar- 
ently had  considerable  influence,  Gal.  2 :  12.  The  leading 
part  in  the  council  of  Jerusalem  is  taken  by  this  James,  Acts 
15:  13  ff.  And  when,  at  the  end  of  his  third  missionary 
journey,  Paul  comes  to  Jerusalem,  he  first  greeted  the  breth- 
ren informally,  and  on  the  following  day  "went  unto  James, 
and  all  the  elders  were  present,"  Acts  21 :  18.  (2)  The  author- 
ship of  this  James  is  also  favored  by  a  comparison  of  the 
letter.  Acts  15:23-29,  very  likely  written  under  the  inspir- 
ing influence  of  James,  together  with  his  speech  at  the 
council  of  Jerusalem,  and  certain  parts  of  our  Epistle,  which 
reveals  striking  similarities.  The  salutation  yaipziw,  Acts 
15 :  23,  Jas.  1 :  1  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament 
only  in  Acts  23  :26.  The  words  to  xaXov  6vo[xa  to  imv.'kriQh 
e<p'  ufJLaq,  2 :7,  can  only  be  paralleled  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  Acts  15:17.  Both  the  speech  of  James  and 
the  Epistle  are  characterized  by  pointed  allusions  to  the  Old 
Testament.  The  affectionate  term  aSeX^o?,  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  Epistle  (cf.  1  : 2,  9,  16,  19;  2 :  5,  15 ;  3 :  1 ; 
4 :  1 1 ;  5 :  7,  9,  10,  12,  19) ,  is  also  found  in  Acts  15 :  13,  23 ; 
compare  especially  Jas.  2:  5  and  Acts  15 :  13.  Besides  these 
there  are  other  verbal  coincidences,  as  eTutaxsicTsaOai,  Jas. 
1:27;  Acts  15:14;  TY^petv  and  StaTYjpstv,  Jas.  1:27,  Acts 
15:29;  s7rtaTpe<petv,  Jas.  5:19,  20;  Acts  15:19;  dYaTCrjTO?, 
Jas.  1:16,  19;  2:5;  Acts  15:25.  (3)  The  words  of  the 
address  are  perfectly  applicable  to  this  particular  James. 
He  does  not  claim  that  he  is  an  apostle,  as  do  Paul  and  Peter 
in  their  Epistles.  It  might  be  objected,  however,  that  if  he 
was  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  he  would  have  laid  stress  on 
that  relation  to  enhance  his  authority.  But  does  it  not  seem 
far  more  likely,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Christ  definitely 
pointed  out  the  comparative  insignificance  of  this  earthly 
relationship,  Matt.  12 :  46-50,  that  James  would  be  careful 
not  to  make  it  the  basis  of  any  special  claim,  and  therefore 
simply  speaks  of  himself  as  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ? 


284  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Now  the  question  comes  up,  whether  this  James  cannot 
be  identified  with  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  one  of  the 
Lord's  apostles,  Mt.  10 :  3  ;  Mk.  3  :  18 ;  Lk.  6 :  15  ;  Acts  1:13. 
This  identification  would  imply  that  the  so-called  brethren 
of  the  Lord  were  in  reality  his  cousins,  a  theory  that  was 
broached  by  Jerome  about  A.  D.  383,  and  which,  together 
with  the  view  of  Epiphanius  (that  these  brethren  were  sons 
of  Joseph  by  a  former  marriage)  was  urged  especially  in 
the  interest  of  the  perpetual  virginity.  But  this  theory  is 
not  borne  out  by  the  data  of  Scripture,  for:  (1)  The 
brethren  of  the  Lord  are  distinguished  from  his  disciples  in 
John  2 :  12,  and  from  the  twelve  after  their  calling  in  Mt. 
12 :  46  if. ;  Mk.  3 :  31  ff. ;  Lk.  8 :  19  ff. ;  and  John  7:2>.  It  is 
stated  that  they  did  not  belong  to  the  circle  of  his  disciples, 
indirectly  in  Mt.  13 :  55  ;  Mk.  6 :  3,  and  directly  in  John  7 :  5. 
(2)  Although  it  is  true  that  cousins  are  sometimes  called 
brethren  in  Scripture,  cf.  Gen.  14  16;  29:  12,  15,  we  need 
not  assume  that  this  is  the  case  also  in  the  instance  before 
us.  Moreover  it  is  doubtful  whether  James  the  son  of 
Alphseus  was  a  cousin  of  Jesus.  According  to  some  this 
relationship  is  clearly  implied  in  John  19 :  25 ;  but  it  is  by 
no  means  certain  that  in  that  passage,  "Mary  the  wafe  of 
Clopas,"  stands  in  apposition  with,  "his  mother's  sister."  If 
we  do  accept  that  interpretation,  we  must  be  ready  to  believe 
that  there  were  two  sisters  bearing  the  same  name.  It  is 
more  plausible  to  think  that  John  speaks  of  four  rather  than 
of  three  women,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
gospels  speak  of  at  least  five  in  connection  with  Jesus'  death 
and  resurrection,  cf .  Mt.  27 :  56 ;  Mk.  16:1;  Lk.  24 :  10.  But 
even  if  we  suppose  that  he  speaks  of  but  three,  how  are  we 
going  to  prove  the  identity  of  Alphseus  and  Clopas?  And 
in  case  we  could  demonstrate  this,  how  must  we  account  for 
the  fact  that  only  two  sons  are  named  of  Mary,  the  wife  of 
Clopas,  viz.  James  and  Joses,  Mt.  27:56;  Mk.  15:40;  Lk. 
24 :  10,  comp.  John  19 :  25,  while  there  are  four  brethren  of 
the  Lord,  Mt.  13 :  55 ;  Mk.  6:  3,  viz.  James,  Joses,  Judas  and 
Simon?     It  has  been  argued  that  Judas  is  indicated  as  a 


THE  GENERAL  EPISLTE  OF  JAMES  285 

brother  of  James  the  less  in  Lk.  6:  16;  Acts  1 :  13,  where  we 
read  of  a  'louSot?  'laxw^ou.  But  it  is  contrary  to  analogy  to 
supply  the  word  brother  in  such  cases.  (3)  We  repeatedly 
find  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  in  the  company  of  Mary,  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  just  as  we  would  expect  to  find  children 
with  their  mother.  Moreover  in  passages  like  Mt.  12:46; 
Mk.  3:  31,  32;  and  Lk.  8:  19  it  is  an  exegetical  mistake  to 
take  the  word  mother  in  its  literal  sense,  and  then  to  put  a 
different  interpretation  on  the  word  brother.  We  conclude, 
therefore,  that  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord  and  the  author 
of  this  Epistle,  was  not  an  apostle.  There  are  two  passages 
that  seem  to  point  in  a  different  direction,  viz.  Gal.  1 :  19 
and  I  Cor.  15:7;  but  in  the  former  passage  £t  \>-ri  may  be 
adversative  rather  than  exceptive,  as  in  Lk.  4 :  26,  27,  cf . 
Thayer  in  loco ;  and  the  name  apostle  was  not  limited  to  the 
twelve.  The  considerations  of  Lange  in  favor  of  identifying 
the  author  with  James,  the  son  of  Alphseus,  are  rather  sub- 
jective. 

James  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of  good  common  sense, 
with  a  well  balanced  judgment,  who  piloted  the  little  vessel 
of  the  Jerusalem  church  through  the  Judaeistic  breakers  with 
a  skillful  hand,  gradually  weaning  her  from  ceremonial  ob- 
servances without  giving  offense  and  recognizing  the  greater 
freedom  of  the  Gentile  churches.  He  was  highly  respected 
by  the  whole  Church  for  his  great  piety  and  whole-hearted 
devotion  to  the  saints.  The  account  of  Hegesippus  with  re- 
spect to  his  paramount  holiness  and  ascetic  habits  is  in  all 
probability  greatly  overdrawn.    Cf.  Eusebius  II  23. 

The  authorship  of  James  has  been  called  in  question  by 
many  scholars  during  the  last  century,  such  as  DeWette, 
Schleiermacher,  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Holtzmann,  Harnack, 
Spitta,  Baljon  e.  a.  The  main  reasons  for  regarding  the 
Epistle  as  spurious,  are  the  following:  (1)  The  condition 
of  the  church  reflected  in  it  reminds  one  of  the  church  at 
Rome  in  the  time  of  Hermas,  when  the  glowing  love  of  the 
first  time  had  lost  its  fervency.     (2)  The  Greek  in  which 


286  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

the  Epistle  is  written  is  far  better  than  one  could  reason- 
ably expect  of  James,  who  always  resided  in  Palestine. 
(3)  The  writer  does  not  mention  the  law  of  Moses,  nor 
refer  to  any  of  its  precepts,  but  simply  urges  the  readers  to 
keep  the  perfect  law  that  requires  love,  charity,  peaceful- 
ness,  etc.,  just  as  a  second  century  writer  would  do ;  while 
James  believed  in  the  permanent  validity  of  the  Mosaic  law, 
at  least  for  the  Jews.  (4)  The  Epistle  bears  traces  of  de- 
pendence on  some  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  especially  Romans 
and  Galatians,  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  on  I  Peter ; 
and  clearly  contradicts  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith. 

But  these  arguments  need  not  shake  our  conviction  as 
to  the  authorship  of  James.  The  condition  implied  in  this 
letter  may  very  well  and,  at  least  in  part,  is  known  to  have 
existed  about  the  middle  of  the  first  century.  Jos.  Ant.  XX 
8.8;  9.2  Cf.  especially  Salmon,  Introd,  p.  501  f.  With  re- 
spect to  the  second  argument  Mayor  remarks  that,  accept- 
ing the  view  that  Jesus  and  his  brethren  usually  spoke 
Aramaeic,  "we  are  not  bound  to  suppose  that,  with  towns 
like  Sepphoris  and  Tiberius  in  their  immediate  vicinity,  with 
Ptolomais,  Scythopolis  and  Gadara  at  no  great  distance,  they 
remained  ignorant  of  Greek."  Hastings  D.  B.  Art.  James, 
the  General  Epistle  of.  The  idea  that  James  was  a  fanatic 
Judaeist  and  therefore  could  not  but  insist  on  keeping  the 
Mosaic  law,  is  not  borne  out  by  Scripture.  He  was  a  Jewish 
Christian  and  reveals  himself  as  such  f.  i.  in  Acts  15 :  14-29; 
21 :  20-25  and  in  his  Epistle,  cf .  2 :  5  fT. ;  3 :  2 ;  4 :  7,  14.  His 
insistence  on  the  spirit  of  the  law,  not  at  all  Judseistic,  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  the  Lord.  The  liter- 
ary dependence  to  which  reference  has  been  made  may,  in 
so  far  as  any  really  exists,  just  as  well  be  reversed,  and  the 
contradiction  between  James  and  Paul  is  only  apparent.  Cf. 
the  larger  Introductions  and  the  Commentaries. 

DESTINATION. 

The  Epistle  is  addressed  to  "the  twelve  tribes  which  are 


THE  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  287 

in  the  dispersion,"  1 :  L  Who  are  indicated  by  these  words  ? 
The  adverbial  phrase,  "in  the  dispersion"  excludes  the  idea 
that  the  writer  refers  to  all  the  Jewish  Christians,  including 
even  those  in  Palestine  (Hofmann,  Thiersch)  ;  and  the  con- 
tents of  the  letter  forbid  us  to  think  that  he  addresses  Jews 
and  Jewish  Christians  jointly  (Thiele,  Guericke,  Weiss). 
There  are,  however,  two  interpretations  that  are  admissible. 
The  expression  may  designate  the  Jewish  Christians  that 
lived  outside  of  Palestine  (the  great  majority  of  scholars)  ; 
but  it  may  also  be  a  description  of  all  the  believers  in  Jesus 
Christ  that  were  scattered  among  the  Gentiles,  after  the 
analogy  of  I  Pet.  1 :  1  and  Gal.  6:  16  (Koster,  Hilgenfeld, 
Hengstenberg,  Von  Soden).  Zahn  is  rather  uncertain  in  his 
interpretation.  He  finds  that  the  twelve  tribes  mentioned 
here  form  an  antithesis  to  the  twelve  tribes  that  were  in 
Palestine,  and  refer  either  to  Christianity  as  a  whole,  or  to 
the  totality  of  Jewish  Christians ;  and  reminds  us  of  the  fact 
that  there  was  a  time,  when  the  two  were  identical.  Einl. 
I  p.  55.  We  prefer  to  think  of  the  Jewish  Christians  of 
the  diaspora  in  Syria  and  neighboring  lands,  which  were 
probably  called  "the  twelve  tribes"  as  representing  the  true 
Israel,  because  (1)  the  Epistle  does  not  contain  a  single 
reference  to  Gentile  Christians ;  (2)  James  was  pre-emin- 
ently the  leader  of  the  Jewish  Church;  (3)  the  entire  com- 
plexion of  the  Epistle  points  to  Jewish  readers. 

The  Epistle  being  of  an  encyclical  character,  naturally 
does  not  have  reference  to  the  situation  of  any  particular 
local  church,  but  to  generally  prevailing  conditions  at  that 
time.  The  Jewish  Christians  to  whom  the  Epistle  is  ad- 
dressed were  subject  to  persecutions  and  temptations,  and 
the  poor  were  oppressed  by  the  rich  that,  possibly,  did  not 
belong  to  their  circle.  They  did  not  bear  these  temptations 
with  the  necessary  patience,  but  were  swayed  by  doubt. 
They  even  looked  with  envy  at  the  glitter  of  the  world  and 
favored  the  rich  at  the  expense  of  the  poor.  In  daily  life 
they  did  not  follow  the  guidance  of  their  Christian  prin- 


288  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

ciples,  so  that  their  faith  was  barren.  There  may  have  been 
dead  works,  but  the  fruits  of  righteousness  were  not  appar- 
ent. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  The  occasion  for  writing 
this  Epistle  is  found  in  the  condition  of  the  readers  which 
we  just  described.  James,  the  head  of  the  Jerusalem  church, 
would  naturally  be  informed  of  this,  probably  in  part  by  his 
own  emissaries  to  the  various  churches  of  the  diaspora, 
Acts  15 :  22 ;  II  Cor.  3:1;  Gal.  2:12,  and  in  part  by  those 
Jewish  Christians  that  came  from  different  lands  to  join 
in  the  great  festivals  at  Jerusalem. 

The  object  of  the  Epistle  was  ethical  rather  than 
didactic ;  it  was  to  comfort,  to  reprove  and  to  exhort.  Since 
the  readers  were  persecuted  to  the  trial  of  their  faith,  and 
were  tempted  in  various  ways,  the  writer  comes  to  them  with 
words  of  consolation.  Feeling  that  they  did  not  bear  their 
trials  with  patience,  but  were  inclined  to  ascribe  to  God  the 
temptations  that  endangered  them  as  a  result  of  their  own 
lust  and  worldliness,  he  reproves  them  for  the  error  of  their 
way.  And  with  a  view  to  the  blots  on  their  Christian  life, 
to  their  worldHness,  their  respect  of  persons,  their  vainglory 
and  their  envy  and  strife,  he  exhorts  them  to  obey  the  royal 
law,  that  they  may  be  perfect  men. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  The  place  of  composition  was  un- 
doubtedly Jerusalem,  where  James  evidently  had  his  con- 
tinual abode.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  determine  when  the  letter 
was  written.  We  have  a  terminus  ad  quern  in  the  death  of 
James  about  the  year  62,  and  a  terminus  a  quo  in  the  per- 
secution that  followed  the  death  of  Stephen  about  A.  D.  35, 
and  that  was  instrumental  in  scattering  the  Jewish  church. 
Internal  evidence  favors  the  idea  that  it  was  written  during 
this  period,  for  (1)  There  is  no  reference  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  either  as  past  or  imminent ;  but 
the  expectation  of  the  speedy  second  coming  of  Christ,  that 


THE  GENERAL  EPISLTE  OF  JAMES  289 

was  characteristic  of  the  first  generation  of  Christians,  was 
still  prevalent,  5 : 7-9.  (2)  The  picture  of  the  unbelieving 
rich  oppressing  the  poor  Christians  and  drawing  them  be- 
fore tribunals,  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  description 
Josephus  gives  of  the  time  immediately  after  Christ,  when 
the  rich  Sadducees  tyrannized  over  the  poor  to  such  a  de- 
gree that  some  starved.  Ant.  XX  8.8;  9.2.  This  condition 
terminated  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  (3)  The 
indistinctness  of  the  line  of  separation  between  the  converted 
and  the  unconverted  Jews  also  favors  the  supposition  that 
the  letter  was  composed  during  this  period,  for  until  nearly 
the  end  of  that  time  these  two  classes  freely  intermingled 
both  at  the  temple  worship  and  in  the  synagogues.  In 
course  of  time,  however,  and  even  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  this  condition  was  gradually  changed. 

But  the  question  remains,  whether  we  can  give  a  nearer 
definition  of  the  time  of  composition.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  Christian  Jews  addressed  in  this  letter  must  have 
had  time  to  spread  and  to  settle  in  the  dispersion  so  that 
they  already  had  their  own  places  of  worship,  we  cannot 
date  the  Epistle  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  period  named. 
Neither  does  it  seem  likely  that  it  was  written  after  the  year 
50,  when  the  council  of  Jerusalem  was  held,  for  (1)  the 
Epistle  does  not  contain  a  single  allusion  to  the  existence  in 
the  church  of  Gentile  Christians ;  and  (2)  it  makes  no 
reference  whatever  to  the  great  controversy  respecting  the 
observance  of  the  Mosaic  law,  on  which  the  council  passed 
a  decision.  Hence  we  are  inclined  to  date  the  Epistle  be- 
tween A.  D.  45  and  50. 

Some  have  objected  to  this  early  date  that  the  Epistle 
is  evidently  dependent  on  Romans,  Galatians,  Hebrews 
and  I  Peter;  but  this  objection  is  an  unproved  assumption. 
It  is  also  said  that  the  Tupea^uxepot  mentioned  in  5  :14  imply 
a  later  date.  We  should  remember,  however,  that  the 
Church,  especially  among  the  Jews,  first  developed  out  of 
the  synagogue,  in  which  presbyters  were  a  matter  of  course. 


290  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Moreover  some  urge  that  the  Christian  knowledge  assumed 
in  the  readers,  as  in  1 :  3 ;  3 :  1,  does  not  comport  with  such 
an  early  date.  It  appears  to  us  that  this  objection  is  puerile. 
Of  those  who  deny  the  authorship  of  James  some  would 
date  the  Epistle  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Reuss, 
Von  Soden,  and  Hilgenfeld  in  the  time  of  Domitian  (81- 
96)  ;  Blom  in  A.  D.  80;  Bruckner  and  Baljon  in  the  time 
of  Hadrian  (117-138). 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

There  was  considerable  doubt  as  to  the  canonicity  of  this 
Epistle  in  the  early  church.  Some  allusions  to  it  have  been 
pointed  out  in  Clement  of  Rome,  Hermas  and  Irenaeus,  but 
they  are  very  uncertain  indeed.  We  cannot  point  to  a  single 
quotation  in  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Tertul- 
lian,  though  some  are  inclined  to  believe  on  the  strength 
of  a  statement  made  by  Eusebius,  Ch.  Hist.  VI  14  that 
Clement  commented  on  this  Epistle,  just  as  he  did  on  the 
other  general  Epistles.  There  are  reasons,  however,  to 
doubt  the  correctness  of  this  statement,  cf .  Westcott,  on  the 
Canon  p.  357.  The  letter  is  omitted  from  the  Muratorian 
Fragment,  but  is  contained  in  the  Peshito.  Eusebius  classes 
it  with  the  Antilegomena,  though  he  seems  uncertain  as  to 
its  canonicity.  Origen  was  apparently  the  first  to  quote  it 
as  Scripture.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Athanasius  and  Gregory 
of  Nazianze  recognized  it,  and  it  was  finally  ratified  by  the 
third  council  of  Carthage  in  A.  D.  397.  During  the  Middle 
Ages  the  canonicity  of  the  Epistle  was  not  doubted,  but 
Luther  for  dogmatical  reasons  called  it  "a  right  strawy 
Epistle."  Notwithstanding  the  doubts  expressed  in  the 
course  of  time,  the  Church  continued  to  honor  it  as  a  canon- 
ical writing  ever  since  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 

The  great  permanent  value  of  this  Epistle  is  found  in 
the  stress  it  lays  on  the  necessity  of  having  a  vital  faith, 
that  issues  in  fruits  of  righteousness.  The  profession  of 
Christ  without  a  corresponding  Christian  life  is  worthless 


THE  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  291 

and  does  not  save  man.  Christians  should  look  into  the 
perfect  law,  and  should  regulate  their  lives  in  harmony  with 
its  deep  spiritual  meaning.  They  should  withstand  tempta- 
tions, be  patient  under  trials,  dwell  together  in  peace  without 
envying  or  strife,  do  justice,  exercise  charity,  remember  each 
other  in  prayer,  and  in  all  their  difficulties  be  mindful  of 
the  fact  that  the  coming  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand. 


The  First  General  Epistle  of  Peter. 


CONTENTS. 

The  contents  of  the  Epistle  can  be  divided  into  four 
parts : 

/.  Introduction,  1  :  1-12.  After  the  greeting,  1,  2,  the 
apostle  praises  God  for  the  blessings  of  salvation,  which 
should  raise  the  readers  above  all  temporal  sufferings,  since 
they  are  so  great  that  the  prophets  searched  them,  and  the 
angels  were  desirous  to  understand  their  mystery,  3-12. 

//.  General  Exhortations  to  a  zvorthy  Christian  Conver- 
sation, 1 :  13 — 2:  10.  The  writer  exhorts  the  readers  to  be- 
come ever  more  firmly  grounded  in  their  Christian  hope. 
To  that  end  the  holiness  of  God  should  be  the  standard  of 
their  life,  1 :  13-16;  they  must  fear  God,  and  as  regenerated 
persons,  love  the  brethren  and  seek  to  increase  in  spiritual 
life,  1 :  17 — 2 :  3.  This  growth  should  not  only  be  individual, 
however,  but  also  communal,  a  developing  into  a  spiritual 
unity,  4-10. 

///.  Particular  Directions  for  the  special  Relations  of 
Life,  2 :  1 1 — 4 :  6.  The  author  urges  the  readers  to  be 
dutiful  to  the  authorities,  2:11-17;  more  particularly  he 
exhorts  the  servants  among  them  to  follow  the  example  of 
Christ  in  self-denying  service,  18-25 ;  the  wives  to  submit 
themselves  to  their  husbands,  and  the  husbands  to  love  their 
wives  and  to  treat  then  with  consideration,  3 :  1-7.  Then  he 
admonishes  them  all  to  do  good  and  to  refrain  from  evil, 
that  in  their  sufferings  they  may  be  like  their  Master,  whom 
they  should  also  follow  in  their  Christian  conversation, 
3:8—4:6. 

IV.  Closing  Instructions  for  the  present  Needs  of  the 
Readers,  4 :  7 — 5  :  14.     The  apostle  exhorts  the  readers  to 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  293 

prayer,  brotherly  love,  hospitality,  and  conscientiousness  in 
the  exercise  of  their  official  duties,  4:7-11.  He  warns  them 
not  to  be  discouraged  by  persecutions,  but  to  regard  these 
as  necessary  to  the  imitation  of  Christ,  12-19.  Further  he 
exhorts  the  elders  to  rule  the  flock  of  Christ  wisely,  the 
younger  ones  to  submit  to  the  elder ;  and  all  to  humble  them- 
selves and  to  place  their  trust  in  God,  5:  1-9;  and  ends  the 
letter  with  good  wishes  and  a  salutation,  10-14. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  Though  there  are  some  doctrinal  statements  in  the 
Epistle,  its  chief  interest  is  not  theoretical  but  practical,  not 
doctrinal  but  ethical.  It  has  been  said  that,  while  Paul  rep- 
resents faith  and  John  love,  Peter  is  the  apostle  of  hope. 
This  distinction,  which  may  easily  be  misconstrued,  never- 
theless contains  an  element  of  truth.  The  basic  idea  of  the 
Epistle  is  that  the  readers  are  begotten  again  unto  a  lively 
hope,  the  hope  of  an  incorruptable,  undefiled  and  unfading 
inheritance.  This  glorious  expectation  must  be  an  incentive 
for  them  to  strive  after  holiness  in  all  the  relations  of  life. 
and  to  bear  patiently  the  reproach  of  Christ,  mindful  of  the 
fact  that  He  is  their  great  prototype,  and  that  suffering  is 
the  pre-requisite  of  everlasting  glory. 

2.  The  Epistle  has  a  characteristic  impress  of  Old  Testa- 
ment modes  of  thought  and  expression.  Not  only  does  it, 
comparatively  speaking,  contain  more  quotations  from  and 
references  to  the  Old  Testament  than  any  other  New  Testa- 
ment writing,  cf .  1 :  16,  24,  25  ;  2 :  3,  4,  6,  7,  9,  10,  22-24 ; 
3:  10-12,  13,  14;  4:8,  17,  18;  5:  5,  7;  but  the  entire  com- 
plexion of  the  letter  shows  that  the  author  lived  and  moved 
in  Old  Testament  conceptions  to  such  an  extent,  that  he 
preferably  expresses  his  thoughts  in  Old  Testament  lan- 
guage. 

3.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  great  similarity  between 
this  Epistle  and  some  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  not- 
ably the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Ephe- 


294  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

sians,  and  the  Epistle  of  James.  And  this  likeness  is  of 
such  a  character  as  to  suggest  dependence  of  the  one  on  the 
other.  Nearly  all  the  thoughts  of  Rom.  12  and  13  are  also 
found  in  this  letter ;  compare  2 :  5  with  Rom.  12  :  1  ; — 1 :  14 
with  Rom.  12:2;— 4:10  with  Rom.  12:3-8;— 1:22  with 
Rom.  12 :  9 ; — 2 :  17  with  Rom.  12  :  10,  etc.  The  relationship 
between  it  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  evident  not 
only  from  single  passages,  but  also  from  the  structure  of 
the  letter.  There  is  a  certain  similarity  in  the  general  and 
special  exhortations,  which  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that 
both  Epistles  are  of  a  general  character.  Compare  also  the 
passages  1 :  3  and  Eph.  1 :  3  ; — 1 :  5  and  Eph.  1 :  19 ; — 1 :  14 
and  Eph.  2:3; — 1 :  18  and  Eph.  4:  17; — 2:  4,  5  and  Eph. 
2 :  20-22.  There  are  also  points  of  resemblance  between  this 
Epistle  and  that  of  James,  and  though  not  so  numerous,  yet 
they  indicate  a  relation  of  dependence ;  compare  1 : 6,  7  with 
Jas.  1 :  2,  3  ;— 2 :  1  with  Jas.  1  :  21  ;— 5  :  5-9  with  Jas.  4 :  6, 
7,  10. 

4.  The  Greek  in  which  this  letter  is  written  is  some  of 
the  best  that  is  found  in  the  New  Testament.  Though  the 
language  is  simple  and  direct,  it  is  not  devoid  of  artistic 
quality.  Simcox,  comparing  it  with  the  language  of  James, 
says :  "St.  Peter's  language  is  stronger  where  St.  James  is 
weak,  and  weaker  where  he  is  strong — it  is  more  varied, 
more  classical,  but  less  eloquent  and  of  less  literary  power." 
The  Writers  of  the  New  Testament  p.  66.  The  author's 
vocabulary  is  very  full  and  rich,  and  his  sentences  flow  on 
with  great  regularity,  sometimes  rising  to  grandeur.  It  is 
noticeable,  however,  that  the  writer,  though  having  a  good 
knowledge  of  Greek  in  general,  was  particularly  saturated 
with  the  language  of  the  Septuagint. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  external  authentication  of  this  Epistle  is  very  strong. 
Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  Origen  and 
Cyprian  all  quote  it  by  name  and  without  expressing  the 
slightest  doubt  as  to  its  canonicity.     And  Eusebius  says : 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  295 

"One  Epistle  of  Peter  called  his  first  is  universally  re- 
ceived." Salmon  suggests  that,  in  view  of  what  Westcott 
says,  its  omission  from  the  Muratorian  Canon  may  be  due 
to  the  error  of  a  scribe,  who  left  out  a  sentence.  Cf.  West- 
cott, The  canon  of  the  N.  T.,  Appendix  C. 

Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  letter  is  self-attested  there 
is  very  little  internal  evidence  that  can  help  us  to  determine 
who  the  author  was.  There  is  nothing  that  points  definitely 
to  Peter,  which  is  in  part  due  to  the  fact  that  we  have  no 
generally  recognized  standard  of  comparison.  The  speeches 
in  Acts  may  not  have  been  recorded  literally  by  Luke ;  and 
II  Peter  is  one  of  the  most  doubted  Epistles  of  the  New 
Testament,  partly  because  it  is  so  dissimilar  to  our  letter. 
If  we  leave  the  first  verse  out  of  consideration,  we  can  only 
say  on  the  strength  of  internal  evidence  that  the  writer  was 
evidently  an  eyewitness  of  the  sufiferings  of  Christ,  -^-Hr^ 
that  the  central  contents  of  his  teaching  is,  like  that  of  Peter 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  death  and  the  resurrection 
of  Christ ;  and  that  his  attitude  toward  the  Christians  of  the 
Gentiles  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  that  of  the  apostle  of 
the  circumcision.  Moreover  the  persons  mentioned  in  5  :  12, 
13  are  known  to  have  been  acquaintances  of  Peter,  cf.  Acts 
12:12;  15:22. 

The  apostle  Peter,  originally  called  Simon,  was  a  native 
of  Bethsaida,  John  1 :  42,  44.  When  the  Lord  entered  on  his 
public  ministry,  Peter  was  married  and  dwelt  at  Capernaum, 
Lk.  4:31,  38.  He  was  the  son  of  Jonas,  Mt.  16:  17  and 
was,  with  his  father  and  his  brother,  by  occupation  a  fisher- 
man, Mk.  1 :  16.  We  find  him  among  the  first  that  were 
called  to  follow  the  Lord,  Mt.  4 :  18,  19,  and  he  soon  received 
a  certain  prominence  among  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  This 
was  in  harmony  with  the  new  name,  Hixpoq,  which  the  Lord 
gave  him,  John  1 :  42.  With  John  and  James  he  formed  the 
inner  circle  of  the  disciples ;  together  they  were  the  most  in- 
timate followers  of  the  Saviour  and  as  such  enjoyed  special 
privileges.    They  only  entered  with  the  Lord  into  the  house 


296  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

of  Jairus,  Lk.  8:  51 ;  none  but  they  witnessed  his  glory  on 
the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  Mt.  17:1;  and  they  alone 
beheld  him  in  his  hour  of  great  grief  in  the  garden  of  Geth- 
semane,  Mt.  26 :  37.  The  trial  of  Jesus  was  also  the  hour 
of  Peter's  deepest  fall,  for  on  that  occasion  he  thrice  denied 
his  Master,  Mt.  26:69-75.  He  truly  repented  of  his  deed, 
however,  and  was  restored  to  his  former  position  by  the 
Lord,  John  21 :  15-17.  After  the  ascension  he  is  found  at 
the  head  of  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem,  guiding  them  in  the 
choice  of  an  apostle  in  the  place  of  Judas,  Acts  1 :  15-26,  and 
preaching  the  Pentecostal  sermon.  Acts  2 :  14-36.  Laboring 
at  first  in  connection  with  John,  he  healed  the  lame  man, 
repeatedly  addressed  the  people  in  the  temple,  executed 
judgment  on  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  and  once  and  again  de- 
fended the  cause  of  Christ  before  the  Sanhedrin,  Acts  3-5. 
During  the  time  of  persecution  that  followed  the  death  of 
Stephen,  they  together  went  to  Samaria  to  establish  the  work 
of  Philip,  Acts  8 :  14  ff.  In  Lydda  he  healed  Aeneas,  Acts 
9 :  22  f .  and  raised  up  Tabitha  in  Joppa,  Acts  9 :  36  f .  By 
means  of  a  vision  he  was  taught  that  the  Gentiles  too  were 
to  be  admitted  to  the  Church,  and  was  prepared  to  go  and 
preach  Christ  to  the  household  of  Cornelius,  Acts  10:  1-48. 
After  James,  the  brother  of  John  was  killed,  Peter  was  cast 
in  prison,  but,  being  delivered  by  an  angel,  he  left  Jerusalem, 
Acts  12 :  1-17.  Later  he  returned  thither  and  was  present 
at  the  council  of  Jerusalem,  Acts  15.  Nothing  certain  is 
known  of  his  movements  after  this  time.  From  I  Cor.  9 :  5 
we  infer  that  he  labored  at  various  places.  On  one  occasion 
Paul  rebuked  him  for  his  dissimulation,  Gal.  2:11  ff .  From 
all  the  traditions  regarding  his  later  life  we  can  gather  only 
one  piece  of  reliable  information,  to  the  effect  that  towards 
the  end  of  his  life  he  came  to  Rome,  where  he  labored  for 
the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  and  suffered  martyrdom  un- 
der Nero. 

Peter  was  a  man  of  action  rather  than  of  deep  thought. 
He  was  always  eager  and  impulsive,  but,  as  is  often  the  case 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  297 

with  such  persons,  was  wanting  in  the  necessary  stability  of 
character.  Burning  with  love  towards  the  Saviour,  he  was 
always  ready  to  defend  his  cause,  Mt.  17:24,  25;  16:22; 
Lk,  22 :  33 ;  John  18 :  10,  and  to  confess  his  name,  John 
6:  68  f . ;  Mt.  16:  16.  But  his  action  was  often  characterized 
by  undue  haste,  as  f.  i.  when  he  rebuked  Christ,  Mt.  16:  22, 
smote  the  servant  of  the  high  priest,  John  18 :  10,  and  re- 
fused to  let  the  Saviour  wash  his  feet,  John  13:6;  and  by 
too  much  reliance  on  his  own  strength,  as  when  he  went  out 
upon  the  sea,  Mt.  14:28-31,  and  declared  himself  ready  to 
die  with  the  Lord,  Mt.  26 :  35.  It  was  this  rashness  and 
great  self-confidence  that  led  to  his  fall.  By  that  painful 
experience  Peter  had  to  be  taught  his  own  weakness  before 
he  could  really  develop  into  the  Rock  among  the  apostles. 
After  his  restoration  we  see  him  as  a  firm  confessor,  ready, 
if  need  be,  to  lay  down  his  life  for  the  Saviour. 

Until  the  previous  century  the  Epistle  was  generally  re- 
garded as  the  work  of  Peter,  and  even  now  the  great  ma- 
jority of  New  Testament  scholars  have  reached  no  other 
conclusion.  Still  there  are  several,  especially  since  the  time 
of  Baur,  that  deny  its  authenticity,  as  Hilgenfeld,  Pfleiderer, 
Weizsacker,  Hausrath,  Keim,  Schiirer,  Von  Soden  e.  a. 
The  most  important  objections  urged  against  the  traditional 
view,  are  the  following :  ( 1 )  The  Epistle  is  clearly  depend- 
ent on  Pauline  letters,  while  it  contains  very  few  traces  of 
the  Lord's  teaching.  This  is  not  what  one  would  expect  of 
Peter,  who  had  been  so  intimate  with  the  Lord  and  had 
taken  a  different  stand  than  Paul,  Gal.  2:  llff.  Harnack 
regards  this  argument  as  decisive,  for  he  says :  "Were  it 
not  for  the  dependence  (of  I  Peter)  on  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  I  might  perhaps  allow  myself  to  maintain  its  gen- 
uineness ;  that  dependence,  however,  is  not  accidental,  but  is 
of  the  essence  of  the  Epistle."  Quoted  by  Chase,  Hastings 
D.  B.  Art.  I  Peter.  (2)  It  is  written  in  far  better  Greek 
than  one  can  reasonably  expect  of  a  Galilean  fisherman 
like  Peter,  of  whom  we  know  that  on  his  missionary  jour-. 


298  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

neys  he  needed  Mark  as  an  interpreter.  Davidson  regards 
it  as  probable  that  he  never  was  able  to  write  Greek.  (3) 
The  Epistle  reflects  conditions  that  did  not  exist  in  the  life- 
time of  Peter.  The  Christians  of  Asia  Minor  were  evi- 
dently persecuted,  simply  because  they  were  Christians,  per- 
secuted for  the  Name,  and  this,  it  is  said,  did  not  take  place 
until  the  time  of  Trajan,  A.  D.  98-117.  (4)  It  is  very  un- 
likely that  Peter  would  write  a  letter  to  churches  founded 
by  Paul,  while  the  latter  was  still  living. 

As  to  the  first  argument,  we  need  not  deny  with  Weiss 
and  his  pupil  Kiihl  that  Peter  is  dependent  on  some  of  the 
writings  of  Paul,  especially  on  Romans  and  Ephesians.  In 
all  probability  he  read  both  of  these  Epistles,  or  if  he  did 
not  see  Ephesians,  Paul  may  have  spoken  to  him  a  good  deal 
about  its  contents.  And  being  the  receptive  character  that 
he  was,  it  was  but  natural  that  he  should  incorporate  some 
of  Paul's  thoughts  in  his  Epistle.  There  was  no  such  anta- 
gonism between  him  and  Paul  as  to  make  him  averse  to  the 
teachings  of  his  fellow-apostle.  The  idea  of  an  evident 
hostility  between  the  two  is  exploded,  and  the  theory  of 
Baur  that  this  letter  is  a  Unionsschrift,  is  destitute  of  all 
historical  basis  and  is  burdened  with  a  great  many  improb- 
abilities. Moreover  it  need  not  cause  surprise  that  the 
teaching  of  this  Epistle  resembles  the  teaching  of  Paul  more 
than  it  does  that  of  Christ,  because  the  emphasis  had  shifted 
with  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  which  now,  in  connection 
with  his  death,  became  the  central  element  in  the  teaching  of 
the  apostles.  Compare  the  sermons  of  Peter  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles. 

With  respect  to  the  objection  that  Peter  could  not  write 
such  Greek  as  we  find  in  this  Epistle,  we  refer  to 
what  Mayor  says  regarding  James,  cf.  p.  286  above.  The 
fact  that  Mark  is  said  to  have  been  the  interpreter  of  Peter 
does  not  imply  that  the  latter  did  not  know  Greek,  cf.  p.  80 
above.  It  is  also  possible,  however,  that  the  Greek  of  this 
Epistle  is  not  that  of  the  apostle.     Zahn  argues  with  great 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  299 

plausibility  from  5 :12,  Aca  StXouavou,  that  Silvanus  took 
an  active  part  in  the  composition  of  the  letter,  and  in  all 
probability  wrote  it  under  the  immediate  direction  rather 
than  at  the  verbal  dictation  of  Peter,  Einl.  II  p.  10  f. 
Cf.  also  Brown  on  /  Peter  in  loco,,  and  J.  H.  A.  Hart,  Exp. 
Gk.  Test.  IV  p.  13  f.  Against  this,  however,  cf.  Chase,  Hast- 
ings D.  B.  Art.  /  Peter.  It  is  possible  that  Silvanus  was  both 
the  amanuensis  of  Peter  and  the  bearer  of  the  Epistle. 

The  third  argument  is  open  to  two  objections.  On  the 
one  hand  it  rests  on  a  faulty  interpretation  of  the  passages 
that  speak  of  the  sufferings  endured  by  the  Christians  of 
Asia  Minor,  as  1 :  6 ;  3 :  9-17 ;  4 : 4  f .,  and  especially  4 :  12-19 ; 
5 : 8-12.  And  on  the  other  hand  it  is  based  on  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  correspondence  between  Pliny  and  Trajan 
A.  D.  112.  The  passages  referred  to  do  not  imply  and  do 
not  even  favor  the  idea  that  the  Christians  were  persecuted 
by  the  state,  though  they  do  point  to  an  ever  increasing 
severity  of  their  sufferings.  There  is  no  hint  of  judicial 
trials,  of  the  confiscation  of  property,  of  imprisonments  or 
of  bloody  deaths.  The  import  of  the  Epistle  is  that  the 
readers  were  placed  under  the  necessity  of  bearing  the  re- 
proach of  Christ  in  a  different  form.  As  Christians  they 
were  subject  to  ridicule,  to  slander,  to  ill  treatment,  and 
to  social  ostracism ;  they  were  the  outcasts  of  the  world, 
4 :  14.  And  this,  of  course,  brought  with  it  manifold  temp- 
tations, 1:6.  At  the  same  time  the  correspondence  of  Pliny 
and  Trajan  does  not  imply  that  Rome  did  not  persecute 
Christians  as  such  until  about  A.  D.  112.  Ramsay  says  that 
this  state  of  affairs  may  have  arisen  as  early  as  the  year  80 ; 
and  Mommsen,  the  greatest  authority  on  Roman  history,  is 
of  the  opinion  that  it  may  have  existed  as  early  as  the  time 
of  Nero. 

The  last  objection  is  of  a  rather  subjective  character. 
Peter  was  undoubtedly  greatly  interested  in  the  work  among 
the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor ;  and  it  is  possible  that  he  him- 
self had  labored  there  for  some  time  among  the  Jews  and 


300  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

thus  became  acquainted  with  the  churches  of  that  region. 
And  does  it  not  seem  Hkely  that  he,  being  informed  of  their 
present  sufferings,  and  knowing  of  the  antagonism  of  the 
Jews,  who  had  occasionally  used  his  name  to  undermine  the 
authority  and  to  subvert  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  would  con- 
sider it  expedient  to  send  them  a  letter  of  exhortation, 
urging  them  to  abide  in  the  truth  in  which  they  stood,  and 
thus  indirectly  strengthening  their  confidence  in  his  fellow- 
apostle  ? 

DESTINATION. 

The  letter  is  addressed  to  "the  elect  who  are  sojourners 
of  the  dispersion  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia  and 
Bithynia,"  1  :1.  The  use  of  the  strictly  Jewish  term  StacTCopa 
is  apt  to  create  the  impression  that  the  letter  was  sent  to 
Jewish  Christians.  Origen  said,  presumably  on  the  strength 
of  this  superscription,  that  Peter  seems  to  have  preached  to 
the  Jews  in  the  dispersion.  And  Eusebius  felt  sure  that  this 
letter  was  sent  to  Hebrews  or  to  Jewish  Christians.  The 
great  majority  of  the  church  fathers  agreed  with  them. 
Among  recent  scholars  Weiss  and  Kiihl  defend  the  position 
that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  Jewish  congregations 
founded  in  Asia  Minor  by  Peter.  But  the  idea  that  the 
original  readers  of  this  Epistle  were  Christians  of  Jewish 
extraction  is  not  favored  by  internal  evidence.  Notice  espe- 
cially ( 1 )  the  passages  that  point  to  the  past  moral  condition 
of  the  readers,  as  1 :  14  (comp.  Gal.  4:8;  Eph.  4 :  18)  ;  1 :  18 
(comp.  Eph.  1:17);  4:2-4  (comp.  I  Thess.  4:5;  Eph. 
2:11);  and  (2)  the  emphatic  use  of  "you"  as  distinguished 
from  the  "us"  found  in  the  context,  to  mark  the  readers  as 
persons  that  were  destined  to  receive  the  blessings  of  the 
gospel  and  to  whom  these  at  last  came.  Moreover  this  is 
in  perfect  agreement  with  what  we  know  of  the  churches 
of  Asia  Minor;  they  certainly  consisted  primarily  of  Gen- 
tile Christians.  But  the  question  is  naturally  asked,  whether 
this  view  is  not  contradicted  by  the  address.  And  to  that 
question  we  answer  that  it  certainly  is,  if  the  word  BcaaTropa? 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  301 

must  be  taken  literally ;  but  this  will  also  bear,  and,  in  har- 
mony with  the  contents  of  the  Epistle,  is  now  generally 
g'ven  a  figurative  interpretation.  The  word  ^laizopaq  is  a 
Genitivus  appostitivus  (for  which  cf.  Blass,  Grammatik 
p.  101)  with  TuapeirtS'^fjLoti;.  Taken  by  itself  the  address  is 
a  figurative  description  of  all  believers,  whether  they  be 
Jewish  or  Gentile  Christians,  as  sojourners  on  earth,  who 
have  here  no  abiding  dwellingplace,  but  look  for  a  heavenly 
city ;  and  who  constitute  a  dispersion,  because  they  are 
separated  from  that  eternal  home  of  which  the  earthly  Jeru- 
salem was  but  a  symbol.  In  agreement  with  this  the  apostle 
elsewhere  addresses  the  readers  as  "pilgrims  and  strangers," 
2:11,  and  exhorts  them  "to  pass  the  time  of  their  sojourning 
here  in  fear,"  1  :  17.  Cf.  the  Comm.  of  Huther,  Brown,  and 
Hart  {Exp.  Gk.  Test.),  and  the  Introductions  of  Zahn, 
Holtzmann,  Davidson  and  Earth.  Salmon  admits  the  possi- 
bility of  this  interpretation,  but  is  yet  inclined  to  take  the 
word  ScaaTCopa?  literally,  and  to  believe  that  Peter  wrote 
his  letter  to  members  of  the  Roman  church  that  were  scat- 
tered through  Asia  Minor  as  a  result  of  Nero's  persecution. 
Introd.  p.  485. 

As  to  the  condition  of  the  readers,  the  one  outstanding 
fact  is  that  they  were  subject  to  hardships  and  persecutions 
because  of  their  allegiance  to  Christ,  1 :  17 ;  2 :  12-19.  There 
is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  they  were  persecuted  by  the 
state ;  they  suffered  at  the  hands  of  their  associates  in  daily 
life.  The  Gentiles  round  about  them  spoke  evil  of  them, 
because  they  did  not  take  part  in  their  revelry  and  idolatry, 
4 :  2-4.  This  constituted  the  trial  of  their  faith,  and  it  seems 
that  some  were  in  danger  of  becoming  identified  with  the 
heathen  way  of  living,  2:11,  12,  16.  They  were  in  need  of 
encouragement  and  of  a  firm  hand  to  guide  their  feeble 
steps. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  In  a  general  way  we  can  say 
that  the  condition  just  described  led  Peter  to  write  this 


302  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Epistle,  He  may  have  received  information  regarding  the 
state  of  affairs  from  Mark  or  Silvanus,  who  is  undoubtedly 
to  be  indentified  with  Paul's  companion  of  that  name,  and 
was  therefore  well  acquainted  with  the  churches  of  Asia 
Minor.  Probably  the  direct  occasion  for  Peter's  writing 
must  be  found  in  a  prospective  journey  of  Silvanus  to  those 
churches. 

The  writer's  purpose  was  not  doctrinal  but  practical.  He 
did  not  intend  to  give  an  exposition  of  the  truth,  but  to  em- 
phasize its  bearings  on  life,  especially  in  the  condition  in 
which  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor  were  placed.  The 
Tubingen  critics  are  mistaken,  however,  when  they  hold  that 
the  unknown  writer,  impersonating  Peter,  desired  to  make 
it  appear  as  if  there  was  really  no  conflict  between  the 
apostle  of  the  circumcision  and  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  to  unite  the  discordant  factions  in  the  Church ;  for  ( 1 ) 
such  antagonistic  parties  did  not  exist  in  the  second  century, 
and  (2)  the  Epistle  does  not  reveal  a  single  trace  of  such  a 
tendency.     The  writer  incidentally  and  in  a  general  way 

states  his  aim,  when  he  says  in  5 :  12,  "By  Silvanus  I 

have  written  briefly,  exhorting  and  testifying  that  this  is  the 
true  grace  of  God  wherein  ye  stand."  The  main  purpose  of 
the  author  was  evidently  to  exhort  the  readers  to  suffer,  not 
as  evil-doers,  but  as  well-doers,  to  see  to  it  that  they  should 
suffer  for  the  sake  of  Christ  only;  to  suffer  patiently,  re- 
maining steadfast  in  spite  of  all  temptations;  and  to  bear 
their  sufferings  with  a  joyful  hope,  since  they  would  issue  in 
a  glory  that  never  fades  away.  And  because  these  suffer- 
ings might  lead  them  to  doubt  and  discouragement,  the 
writer  makes  it  a  point  to  testify  that  the  grace  in  which  they 
stand,  and  with  which  the  sufferings  of  this  present  time 
are  inseparably  connected,  is  yet  the  true  grace  of  God,  thus 
confirming  the  work  of  Paul. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  There  are  especially  three  theories 
regarding  the  place  of  composition,  viz.  ( 1 )  that  the  Epistle 
was  sent  from  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates;  (2)  that  it  was 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  303 

composed  at  Rome;  and  (3)  that  it  was  written  from  Baby- 
lon near  Cairo  in  Egypt.  The  last  hypothesis  found  no  sup- 
port and  need  not  be  considered.  The  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion respecting  the  place  of  composition  depends  on  the  in- 
terpretation of  5:  13,  where  we  read:  "She  (the  church) 
that  is  in  Babylon,  elect  together  with  you,  saluteth  you." 
The  prima  facie  impression  made  by  these  words  is  that  the 
writer  was  at  ancient  Babylon,  the  well  known  city  on  the 
Euphrates.  Many  of  the  early  church  fathers,  however, 
(Papias,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Hippolytus,  Eusebius, 
Jerome)  and  several  later  commentators  and  writers  on  In- 
troduction (Bigg,  Hart,  Salmon,  Holtzmann,  Zahn,  Chase) 
regard  the  name  Babylon  as  a  figurative  designation  of 
Rome,  just  as  it  is  in  the  Apocalypse,  17:5;  18:2.  10.  In 
favor  of  the  literal  interpretation  it  is  argued,  (1)  that  its 
figurative  use  is  very  unlikely  in  a  matter-of-fact  statement ; 
and  (2)  that  in  1  :  1  the  order  in  which  the  provinces  of 
Asia  Minor  are  named  is  from  the  East  to  the  West,  thus 
indicating  the  location  of  the  writer.  Aside  from  the  fact, 
however,  that  the  last  argument  needs  some  qualification, 
these  considerations  seem  to  be  more  than  off-set  by  the  fol- 
lowing facts  :  ( 1 )  An  old  and  reliable  tradition,  that  can 
be  traced  to  the  second  century,  informs  us  that  Peter  was 
at  Rome  towards  the  end  of  his  life,  and  finally  died  there 
as  a  martyr.  This  must  be  distinguished  from  that  fourth 
century  tradition  to  the  effect  that  he  resided  at  Rome  for 
a  period  of  twenty-five  years  as  its  first  bishop.  On  the 
other  hand  there  is  not  the  slightest  record  of  his  having 
been  at  Babylon.  Not  until  the  Middle  Ages  was  it  inferred 
from  5:13  that  he  had  visited  the  city  on  the  Euphrates. 
(2)  In  the  Revelation  of  John  Rome  is  called  Babylon,  a 
terminology  that  was  likely  to  come  into  general  use,  as 
soon  as  Rome  showed  herself  the  true  counterpart  of  ancient 
Babylon,  the  representative  of  the  world  as  over  against  the 
Church  of  God.  The  Neronian  persecution  certainly  began 
to  reveal  her  character  as  such.  ( 3 )  The  symbolical  sense  is 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  figurative  interpretation  of  the 


304  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

address,  and  with  the  designation  of  the  readers  as  "pilgrims 
and  strangers  in  the  earth."  (4)  In  view  of  what  Josephus 
says  in  Ant,  XVIII  9.  it  is  doubtful,  whether  Babylon  would 
offer  the  apostle  a  field  for  missionary  labors  at  the  time, 
when  this  Epistle  was  composed.  We  regard  it  as  very 
likely  that  the  writer  refers  to  Rome  in  5 :  13. 

With  respect  to  the  time  when  this  Epistle  was  written, 
the  greatest  uncertainty  prevails.  Dates  have  been  suggested 
all  the  way  from  54  to  147  A.  D.  Of  those  who  deny  the 
authorship  of  Peter  the  great  majority  refer  the  letter  to  the 
time  of  Trajan  after  A.  D.  112,  the  date  of  Trajan's  re- 
script, for  reasons  which  we  already  discussed.  Thus  Baur, 
Keim,  Lipsius,  Pfieiderer,  Hausrath,  Weizsacker,  Hilgen- 
feld,  Davidson  e.  a.  In  determining  the  time  of  writing  we 
must  be  guided  by  the  following  data :  ( 1 )  The  Epistle 
cannot  have  been  written  later  than  A.  D.  67  or  68,  the  tradi- 
tional date  of  Peter's  death,  which  some,  however  place  in 
the  year  64.  Cf.  Zahn  Eml.  II  p.  19.  (2)  Peter  had  evi- 
dently read  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Romans  (58)  and 
that  to  the  Ephesians  (62),  and  therefore  cannot  have  writ- 
ten his  letter  before  A.  D.  62.  (3)  The  letter  makes  no 
mention  whatever  of  Paul,  so  that  presumably  it  was  writ- 
ten at  a  time  when  this  apostle  was  not  at  Rome.  (4)  The 
fact  that  Peter  writes  to  Pauline  churches  favors  the  idea 
that  Paul  had  temporarily  withdrawn  from  his  field  of  labor. 
We  are  inclined  to  think  that  he  composed  the  Epistle,  when 
Paul  was  on  his  jojurney  to  Spain,  about  A.  D.  64  or  65. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  canonicity  of  the  letter  has  never  been  subject  to 
doubt  in  the  opening  centuries  of  our  era.  It  is  referred  to 
in  II  Peter  3:1.  Papias  evidently  used  it  and  there  are  clear 
traces  of  its  language  in  Clement  of  Rome,  Hermas  and 
Polycarp.  The  old  Latin  and  Syriac  Versions  contain  it, 
while  it  is  quoted  in  the  Epistle  of  the  churches  of  Vienne 
and  Lyons,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  TertuUian 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  305 

all  quote  it  by  name,  and  Eusebius  classes  it  with  the  Homo- 
logoumena. 

Some  scholars  objected  to  this  Epistle  that  it  was  charac- 
terized by  a  want  of  distinctive  character.  But  the  objec- 
tion is  not  well  founded,  since  the  letter  certainly  has  a 
unique  significance  among  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  emphasizes  the  great  importance  which  the  hope 
of  a  blessed  and  eternal  inheritance  has  in  the  life  of  God's 
children.  Viewed  in  the  light  of  their  future  glory,  the 
present  life  of  believers,  with  all  its  trials  and  sufferings, 
recedes  into  the  background,  and  they  realize  that  they  are 
strangers  and  pilgrims  in  the  earth.  From  that  point  of 
view  they  understand  the  significance  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  as  opening  up  the  way  to  God,  and  they  also  learn 
to  value  their  own  hardships  as  these  minister  to  the  devel- 
opment of  faith  and  to  their  everlasting  glory.  And  then, 
living  in  expectation  of  the  speedy  return  of  their  Lord, 
they  realize  that  their  sufferings  are  of  short  duration,  and 
therefore  bear  them  joyfully.  In  the  midst  of  all  her  strug- 
gles the  Church  of  God  should  never  forget  to  look  forward 
to  her  future  glory, — the  object  of  her  living  hope. 


The  Second  General  Epistle  of  Peter. 


CONTENTS. 

The  contents  of  the  Epistle  can  be  divided  into  two  parts : 
/.  The  Importance  of  Christian  Knowledge,  1 :  1-21. 
After  the  greeting,  1,  2,  the  author  reminds  the  readers  of 
the  great  blessings  they  received  through  the  knowledge  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  urges  them  to  live  worthy  of  that  knowl- 
edge and  thus  to  make  sure  their  calling  and  election,  3-11. 
He  says  that  he  deemed  it  expedient  to  put  them  in  mind  of 
what  they  knew,  and  that  he  would  see  to  it  that  they  had  a 
remembrance  of  these  things  after  his  decease,  12-15.  This 
knowledge  is  of  the  greatest  value,  because  it  rests  on  a  sure 
foundation,  16-21. 

//.  Warning  against  False  Teachers,  2:  1 — 3:  18.  The 
apostle  announces  the  coming  of  false  prophets,  who  shall 
deny  the  truth  and  mislead  many,  2:  1-3.  Then  he  proves 
the  certainty  of  their  punishment  by  means  of  historical 
examples,  4-9,  and  gives  a  minute  description  of  their  sen- 
sual character,  10-22.  Stating  that  he  wrote  the  letter  to 
remind  them  of  the  knowledge  they  had  received,  he  in- 
forms them  that  the  scoffers  that  will  come  in  the  last  days, 
will  deny  the  advent  of  Christ,  3:1-4.  He  refutes  their 
arguments,  assuring  the  readers  that  the  Lord  will  come, 
and  exhorting  them  to  a  holy  conversation,  5-13.  Referring 
to  his  agreement  with  Paul  in  this  teaching,  he  ends  his  letter 
with  an  exhortation  to  grow  in  grace  and  in  the  knowledge 
of  Jesus  Christ,  14-18. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  Like  the  first  Epistle  this  second  one  is  also  a  letter 
of  practical  warning,  exhortation  and  encouragement.     But 


THE  SECOND  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  307 

while  in  the  former  the  dominant  note  is  that  of  Christian 
hope,  the  controlling  idea  in  the  latter  is  that  of  Christian 
knowledge.  It  is  the  "eTrtYvo)at(;  ypiazob,  which  consists 
essentially  in  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Suva[i,t(;  /.dt 
Tcapouata  of  Christ.  Advancement  in  this  eTciYvwatq,  as  the 
ground  and  aim  of  the  exercise  of  all  Christian  virtues,  is 
the  prominent  feature  of  every  exhortation."  Huther, 
Comm.  p.  344.  This  knowledge,  resting  on  a  sure  founda- 
tion, must  be  the  mainstay  of  the  readers,  when  false  doc- 
trines are  propagated  in  their  midst,  and  must  be  their  in- 
centive to  holiness  in  spite  of  the  seducing  influences  round 
about  them. 

2.  This  Epistle  has  great  affinity  with  that  of  Jude,  cf. 
2:  1-18;  3:  1-3.  The  similarity  is  of  such  a  character  that 
it  cannot  be  regarded  as  accidental,  but  clearly  points  to 
dependence  of  the  one  on  the  other.  Though  it  cannot  be 
said  that  the  question  is  absolutely  settled,  the  great  major- 
ity of  scholars,  among  whom  there  are  some  who  deny  the 
authorship  of  Peter  (Holtzmann,  Jiilicher,  Chase,  Strachan. 
Barth  e.  a.),  and  others  who  defend  the  authenticity  of  the 
Epistle  (Wiesinger,  Bruckner,  Weiss,  Alford,  Salmon), 
maintain  the  priority  of  Jude.  The  main  reasons  that  lead 
them  to  this  conclusion,  are  the  following :  ( 1 )  The  phrase- 
ology of  Jude  is  simpler  than  that  of  Peter  in  the  related 
passages.  The  language  of  the  latter  is  more  laborious  and 
looks  like  an  elaboration  of  what  the  former  wrote.  (2) 
Several  passages  in  Peter  can  be  fully  understood  only  in 
the  light  of  what  Jude  says,  compare  2 : 4  with  Jude  6 ; 
2:11  with  Jude  9 ;  3  :  2  with  Jude  17.  (3)  Though  the  simi- 
lar passages  are  adapted  to  the  subject-matter  of  both 
Epistles,  they  seem  more  natural  in  the  context  of  Jude  than 
in  that  of  Peter.  The  course  of  thought  is  more  regular  in 
the  Epistle  of  Jude. — The  priority  of  Jude  is  quite  well 
established,  though  especially  Zahn,  Spitta  (who  defends 
the  second  Epistle  of  Peter  at  the  cost  of  the  first)  and  Bigg 
put  up  an  able  defense  for  the  priority  of  Peter. 


308  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

3.  The  language  of  II  Peter  has  some  resemblance  to 
that  of  the  first  Epistle,  cf.  Weiss,  Introd.  II  p.  166,  but  the 
difiference  between  the  two  is  greater  than  the  similarity. 
We  need  not  call  special  attention  to  the  axa^  Xeyoixeva 
found  in  this  letter,  since  it  contains  but  48,  while  I  Peter 
has  58.  But  there  are  other  points  that  deserve  our  atten- 
tion. Bigg  says :  "The  vocabulary  of  I  Peter  is  dignified ; 
that  of  II  Peter  inclines  to  the  grandiose."  Comm.  p.  225. 
And  according  to  Simcox,  "we  see  in  this  Epistle,  as  com- 
pared with  the  first,  at  once  less  instinctive  familiarity  with 
Greek  idiom  and  more  conscious  effort  at  elegant  Greek 
composition."     Writers  of  the  N.  T.  p.  69. 

There  are  361  words  in  I  Peter  that  are  not  found  in  this 
Epistle,  and  231  in  II  Peter  that  are  absent  from  the  first 
letter.  There  is  a  certain  fondness  for  the  repetition  of 
words,  cf.  Holtzmann,  Einl.  p.  322,  which  Bigg,  however, 
finds  equally  noticeable  in  I  Peter.  The  connecting  particles, 
tva,  OTt,  ouv,  piev,  found  frequently  in  I  Peter,  are  rare  in 
this  Epistle,  where  instead  we  find  sentences  introduced  with 
xruTO  or  xauxa,  cf.  1:8,  10;  3:11,  14.  And  while  in  the 
first  Epistle  there  is  a  free  interchange  of  prepositions,  we 
often  find  a  repetition  of  the  same  preposition  in  the  second, 
f .  i.  Bta  is  found  three  times  in  1 :3-5  and  ev  seven  times 
in  1 :  5-7.  Different  words  are  often  used  to  express  the 
same  ideas;  compare  oi-xov.ocXwht.q,  I  Pt.  1:7,  13;  4:13  with 
irapouata,  II  Pt.  1:16;  3:4; — pavTtajxo?,  I  Pt.  1:2  with 
xa6apt(7[jL6i;,  II  Pt.  1:9; — /,XY]povopi.t'a,  I  Pt.  1:4  with  atwvoi; 
PaatXeia,  II  Pt.  1:11. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

This  Epistle  is  the  most  weakly  attested  of  all  the  New 
Testament  writings.  Besides  that  of  Jerome  we  do  not  find 
a  single  statement  in  the  fathers  of  the  first  four  centuries 
explicitly  and  positively  ascribing  this  work  to  Peter.  Yet 
there  are  some  evidences  of  its  canonical  use,  which  indi- 
rectly testify  to  a  belief   in  its  genuineness.     There   are 


THE  SECOND  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  309 

some  phrases  in  Clement  of  Rome,  Hermas,  the  Clementine 
Recognitions  and  Theophilus  that  recall  II  Peter,  but  the 
coincidences  may  be  accidental.  Supposed  traces  of  this 
Epistle  are  found  in  Irenaeus,  though  they  may  all  be  ac- 
counted for  in  another  way,  cf.  Salmon,  Introd.  p.  324  f. 
Eusebius  and  Photius  say  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  com- 
mented on  our  Epistle,  and  their  contention  may  be  correct, 
notwithstanding  the  doubt  cast  on  it  by  Cassiodorus,  cf. 
Davidson,  Introd.  II  p.  533  f.  Origen  attests  that  the  book 
was  known  in  his  time,  but  that  its  genuineness  was  dis- 
puted. He  himself  quotes  it  several  times  without  any  ex- 
pression of  doubt.  It  is  pointed  out,  however,  that  these 
quotations  are  found  in  those  parts  of  his  work  that  we 
know  only  in  the  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus,  which  is  not 
always  reliable ;  though,  according  to  Salmon,  the  presump- 
tion is  that  Rufinus  did  not  invent  them,  Introd.  p.  533  f. 
Eusebius  classes  this  letter  with  the  Antilegomena ;  and 
Jerome  says :  "Simon  Peter  wrote  two  Epistles,  which  are 
called  catholic ;  the  second  of  which  most  persons  deny  to 
be  his,  on  account  of  its  disagreement  in  style  with  the  first." 
This  difference  he  elsewhere  explains  by  assuming  that 
Peter  employed  a  different  interpreter.  From  that  time  the 
Epistle  was  received  by  Rufinus,  Augustine,  Basil,  Greg- 
ory, Palladius,  Hilary,  Ambrose  e.  a.  During  the  Middle 
Ages  it  was  generally  accepted,  but  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation  Erasmus  and  Calvin,  though  accepting  the  let- 
ter as  canonical,  doubted  the  direct  authorship  of  Peter. 
Yet  Calvin  believed  that  in  some  sense  the  Petrine  author- 
ship had  to  be  maintained,  and  surmised  that  a  disciple  wrote 
it  at  the  command  of  Peter. 

The  Epistle  itself  definitely  points  to  Peter  as  its  author. 
In  the  opening  verse  the  writer  calls  himself,  "Simon  Peter, 
a  servant  and  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  which  clearly  ex- 
cludes the  idea  of  Grotius,  that  Symeon,  the  successor  of 
James  at  Jerusalem,  wrote  the  letter.  From  1  :  16-18  we 
learn  that  the  author  was  a  witness  of  the  transfiguration 
of  Christ ;  and  in  3 :  1  we  find  a  reference  to  his  first  Epistle. 


310  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

As  far  as  style  and  expression  are  concerned  there  is  even 
greater  similarity  between  this  letter  and  the  speeches  of 
Peter  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  than  between  the  first 
Epistle  and  those  addresses.  Moreover  Weiss  concludes 
that,  from  a  biblical  and  theological  point  of  view,  no  New 
Testament  writing  is  more  like  I  Peter  than  this  Epistle, 
Introd.  II  p.  165.  Besides  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Epistle 
is  against  the  idea  that  it  is  a  forgery.  Calvin  maintained 
its  canonicity,  "because  the  majesty  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
exhibited  itself  in  every  part  of  the  Epistle." 

Notwithstanding  this,  however,  the  authenticity  of  the 
letter  is  subject  to  serious  doubt  in  modern  times,  such 
scholars  as  Mayerhofif,  Credner,  Hilgenfeld,  Von  Soden, 
Hausrath,  Mangold,  Davidson,  Volkmar,  Holtzmann, 
Jiilicher,  Harnack,  Chase,  Strachan  e.  a.  denying  that  Peter 
wrote  it.  But  the  Epistle  is  not  without  defenders ;  its 
authenticity  is  maintained  among  others  by  Luthardt,  Wie- 
singer,  Guericke,  Windischmann,  Bruckner,  Hofmann,  Sal- 
mon, Alford,  Zahn,  Spitta,  and  Warfield,  while  Huther, 
Weiss,  and  Kuhl  conclude  their  investigations  with  a  non 
liquet. 

The  principle  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  II  Peter 
are  the  following:  (1)  The  language  of  the  Epistle  is  so 
different  from  that  of  I  Peter  as  to  preclude  the  possibility 
of  their  proceeding  from  the  same  author.  (2)  The  de- 
pendence of  the  writer  on  Jude  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea 
that  he  was  Peter,  not  only  because  Jude  was  written  long 
after  the  lifetime  of  Peter,  but  also  since  it  is  unworthy  of 
an  apostle  to  rely  to  such  a  degree  on  one  who  did  not  have 
that  distinction.  (3)  It  appears  that  the  author  is  over- 
anxious to  identify  himself  with  the  apostle  Peter:  there 
is  a  threefold  allusion  to  his  death,  1  :  13-15 ;  he  wants  the 
readers  to  understand  that  he  was  present  at  the  transfigura- 
tion, 1 :  16-18;  and  he  identifies  himself  with  the  author  of 
the  first  Epistle,  3:1.  (4)  In  3:2,  where  the  reading  u^jlwv 
is  better  attested  than  r)[xwv,  the  writer  by  using  the  expres- 


THE  SECOND  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  311 

sion,  iriq  twv  (ZTCoaToXtov  u(xoJv  evxoX'^i;,  seems  to  place 
himself  outside  of  the  apostolic  circle.  Deriving  the  expres- 
sion from  Jude,  the  writer  forgot  that  he  wanted  to  pass  for 
an  apostle  and  therefore  could  not  use  it  with  equal  propri- 
ety. Cf.  Holtzmann,  Einl.  p.  321.  (5)  The  writer  speaks 
of  some  of  Paul's  Epistles  as  Scripture  in  3 :  16,  implying 
the  existence  of  a  New  Testament  canon,  and  thus  betrays 
his  second  century  standpoint.  (6)  The  Epistle  also  refers 
to  doubts  regarding  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  3:4  fif., 
which  points  beyond  the  lifetime  of  Peter,  because  such 
doubts  could  not  be  entertained  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  (7)  According  to  Dr.  Abbott  (in  the  Expositor) 
the  author  of  II  Peter  is  greatly  indebted  to  the  Antiquities 
of  Josephus,  a  work  that  was  published  about  A.  D.  93. 

We  cannot  deny  that  there  is  force  in  some  of  these  argu- 
ments, but  do  not  believe  that  they  compel  us  to  give  up  the 
authorship  of  Peter.  The  argument  from  style  is  un- 
doubtedly the  most  important  one ;  but  if  we  accept  the 
theory  that  Silvanus  wrote  the  first  Epistle  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Peter,  while  the  apostle  composed  the  second,  either 
with  his  own  hand  or  by  means  of  another  amanuensis,  the 
difficulty  vanishes. — As  far  as  the  literary  dependence  of 
Peter  on  Jude  is  concerned,  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that 
this  is  not  absolutely  proved.  However,  assuming  it  to  be 
established,  there  is  nothing  derogatory  in  it  for  Peter,  since 
Jude  was  also  an  inspired  man,  and  because  in  those  early 
days  unacknowledged  borrowing  was  looked  at  in  a  far  dif- 
ferent light  than  it  is  today. — That  the  author  is  extremely 
solicitous  to  show  that  he  is  the  apostle  Peter,  is,  even  if  it 
can  be  proved,  no  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  this 
letter.  In  view  of  the  errorists  against  which  he  warns  the 
readers,  it  was  certainly  important  that  they  should  bear  in 
mind  his  official  position.  But  it  cannot  be  maintained  that 
he  insists  on  this  over-much.  The  references  to  his  death, 
his  experience  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  and  his  first 
Epistle  are  introduced  in  a  perfectly  natural  way.  More- 
over this  argument  is  neutralized  by  some  of  the  others 


312  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

brought  forward  by  the  negative  critics.  If  the  writer  really 
was  so  over-anxious,  why  does  he  speak  of  himself  as  Simon 
Peter,  cf .  I  Pt.  1:1;  why  does  he  seemingly  exclude  himself 
from  the  apostolic  circle,  3:2;  and  why  did  he  not  more 
closely  imitate  the  language  of  I  Peter? — The  difficulty 
created  by  3  :2  is  not  as  great  as  it  seems  to  some.  If  that 
passage  really  disproves  the  authorship  of  Peter,  it  certainly 
was  a  clumsy  piece  of  work  of  a  very  clever  forger,  to  let 
it  stand.  But  the  writer,  speaking  of  the  prophets  as  a  class, 
places  alongside  of  them  another  class,  viz.  that  of  the 
apostles,  who  had  more  especially  ministered  to  the  New 
Testament  churches,  and  could  therefore  as  a  class  be  called, 
"your  apostles,"  i.  e.  the  apostles  who  preached  to  you.  The 
writer  evidently  did  not  desire  to  single  himself  out,  prob- 
ably, if  for  no  other  reasons,  because  other  apostles  had 
labored  more  among  the  readers  than  he  had.— The  refer- 
ence to  the  Epistles  of  Paul  does  not  necessarily  imply  the 
existence  of  a  New  Testament  canon ;  and  it  is  a  gratuitous 
assumption  that  they  were  not  regarded  as  Scripture  in  the 
first  century,  so  that  the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  those  who 
make  it. — The  same  may  be  said  of  the  assertion  that  no 
doubt  could  be  entertained  as  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Moreover  the  author 
does  not  say  that  these  were  already  expressed,  but  that  they 
would  be  uttered  by  scoffers  that  would  come  in  the  last 
days. — The  attempt  to  prove  the  dependence  of  II  Peter  on 
Josephus,  has  been  proved  fallacious,  especially  by  Salmon 
and  by  Dr.  Warfield.  The  former  says  in  conclusion :  "Dr. 
Abbot  has  completely  failed  to  establish  his  theory ;  but  I 
must  add  that  it  was  a  theory  never  rational  to  try  to  estab- 
lish."   Introd.  p.  536. 

DESTINATION. 

The  readers  are  simply  addressed  as  those  "that  have 
obtained  like  precious  faith  with  us  through  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  1:1.  From  3  :  1 
we  gather,  however,  that  they  are  identical  with  the  readers 


THE  SECOND  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  313 

of  the  first  Epistle;  and  from  3:15,  that  they  were  also  the 
recipients  of  some  Pauline  Epistle (s).  It  is  vain  to  guess 
what  Epistle (s)  the  writer  may  have  had  in  view  here.  Zahn 
argues  at  length  that  our  Epistle  was  written  to  Jewish 
Christians  in  and  round  about  Palestine,  who  had  been  led 
to  Christ  by  Peter  and  by  others  of  the  twelve  apostles.  He 
bases  his  conclusion  on  the  general  difference  of  circum- 
stances presupposed  in  the  two  letters  of  Peter,  and  on  such 
passages  as  1 :  1-4,  16-18;  3:  2.  But  it  seems  to  us  that  the 
Epistle  does  not  contain  a  single  hint  regarding  the  Jewish 
character  of  its  readers,  while  passages  like  1 :4  and  3:  15 
rather  imply  their  Gentile  origin.  Moreover,  in  order  to 
maintain  his  theory,  Zahn  must  assume  that  both  3 :  1  and 
3:  15  refer  to  lost  letters,  cf.  Einl.  II  p.  43  ff. 

The  condition  of  the  readers  presupposed  in  this  letter 
is  indeed  diff'erent  from  that  reflected  in  the  first  Epistle. 
No  mention  is  made  of  persecution ;  instead  of  the  affliction 
from  without,  internal  dangers  are  now  coming  in  view.  The 
readers  were  in  need  of  being  firmly  grounded  in  the  truth, 
since  they  would  soon  have  to  contend  with  heretical  teach- 
ers, who  theoretically  would  deny  the  Lordship  of  Jesus 
Christ,  2:1,  and  his  second  coming,  3:4;  and  practically 
would  disgrace  their  lives  by  licentiousness,  ch.  2.  These 
heretics  have  been  described  as  Sadducees,  as  Gnostics,  and 
as  Nicolaitans,  but  it  is  rather  doubtful,  whether  we  can 
identify  them  with  any  particular  sect.  They  certainly  were 
practical  Antinomians,  leading  careless,  wanton  and  sinful 
lives,  just  because  they  did  not  believe  in  the  resurrection 
and  in  a  future  judgment.  Their  doctrine  was,  in  all  prob- 
ability, an  incipient  Gnosticism. 

Since  the  author  employs  both  the  future  and  the  present 
tense  in  describing  them,  the  question  arises,  whether  they 
were  already  present  or  were  yet  to  come.  The  most  natural 
explanation  is  that  the  author  already  knew  such  false 
teachers  to  be  at  work  in  some  places  (cf.  especially 
I  Corinthians  and  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians),  so  that 
he  could  consequently  give  a  vivid  description  of  them ;  and 


314  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

that  he  expected  them  to  extend  their  pernicious  influence 
also  to  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  The  occasion  that  led  to  the 
composition  of  this  Epistle  must  be  found  in  the  dangerous 
heresies  that  were  at  work  in  some  of  the  churches,  and  that 
also  threatened  the  readers. 

In  determining  the  object  of  the  writer  the  Tubingen 
school  emphasized  3:  15,  and  found  it  in  the  promotion  of 
harmony  and  peace  between  the  Petrine  and  Pauline  parties 
(Baur,  Schwegler,  Hausrath).  With  this  end  in  view,  they 
say,  the  writer  personating  Peter,  the  representative  of  Jew- 
ish Christendom,  acknowledges  Paul,  who  represents  the 
more  liberal  tendency  of  the  Church.  But  it  is  unwarranted 
to  lay  such  stress  on  that  particular  passage.  Others  re- 
garded the  Epistle  as  primarily  a  polemic  against  Gnosti- 
cism, against  the  false  teachers  depicted  in  the  letter.  Now 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Epistle  is  in  part  controversial, 
but  it  is  only  its  secondary  character.  The  main  object  of 
the  letter,  as  indicated  in  1  :  16  and  3:1,  2,  was  to  put  the 
readers  in  mind  of  the  truth  which  they  had  learned,  in 
order  that  they  might  not  be  led  astray  by  the  theoretical  and 
practical  libertines  that  would  soon  make  their  influence 
felt,  and  especially  to  strengthen  their  faith  in  the  promised 
parousia  of  Jesus  Christ. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  The  Epistle  contains  no  certain 
data  as  to  the  time  of  its  composition.  We  can  only  infer 
from  3 :  1  that  it  was  written  after  I  Peter,  though  Zahn, 
who  is  not  bound  by  that  passage,  places  it  before  the  first 
Epistle,  about  A.  D.  60-63.  The  fact  that  the  condition  of 
the  churches,  which  is  indicated  in  this  letter,  is  quite  differ- 
ent from  that  reflected  in  the  earher  writing,  presupposes 
the  lapse  of  some  time,  though  it  does  not  require  many 
years  to  account  for  the  change.  A  short  time  would  suffice 
for  the  springing  up  of  the  enemies  to  which  the  Epistle 
refers.    Can  we  not  say,  in  view  of  the  tendencies  apparent 


THE  SECOND  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  315 

at  Corinth  that  their  doctrines  had  already  been  germinating 
for  some  time  ?  Moreover,  according  to  1:14  the  writer 
felt  that  his  end  was  near.  Hence  we  prefer  to  date  the 
letter  about  the  year  66  or  (>7 . 

They  who  deny  the  authenticity  of  the  Epistle  generally 
place  it  somewhere  between  the  years  90  and  175,  for  such 
reasons  as  its  dependence  on  Jude  and  on  the  Apocalypse 
of  Peter,  its  reference  to  Gnosticism,  and  its  implication 
respecting  the  existence  of  a  New  Testament  canon. 

Since  a  trustworthy  tradition  informs  us  that  Peter  spent 
the  last  part  of  his  life  at  Rome,  the  Epistle  was  in  all  prob- 
ability composed  in  the  imperial  city.  Zahn  points  to 
Antioch,  and  Jiilicher  suggests  Egypt  as  the  place  of  com- 
position. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

For  the  reception  of  this  Epistle  in  the  early  church,  we 
refer  to  what  has  been  said  above. 

Like  all  the  canonical  writings  this  one  too  has  abiding 
significance.  Its  importance  is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  em- 
phasizes the  great  value  of  true  Christian  knowledge,  espe- 
cially in  view  of  the  dangers  that  arise  for  believers  from 
all  kinds  of  false  teachings,  and  from  the  resultant  example 
of  a  loose,  a  licentious,  an  immoral  life.  It  teaches  us  that 
a  Christianity  that  is  not  well  founded  in  the  truth  as  it  is 
in  Christ,  is  like  a  ship  without  a  rudder  on  the  turbulent 
sea  of  life.  A  Christianity  without  dogma  cannot  maintain 
itself  against  the  errors  of  the  day,  but  will  go  down  before 
the  triumphant  forces  of  darkness ;  it  will  not  succeed  in 
cultivating  a  pure,  noble  spiritual  life,  but  will  be  conformed 
to  the  life  of  the  world.  In  particular  does  the  Epistle  re- 
mind us  of  the  fact  that  faith  in  the  return  of  Christ  should 
inspire  us  to  a  holy  conversation. 


The  First  General  Epistle  of  John. 


CONTENTS. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  a  satisfactory  schematic  repre- 
sentation of  the  contents  of  this  letter.  After  the  introduc- 
tion, 1 :  1-4,  in  which  the  apostle  declares  that  the  purpose  of 
his  ministry  is  to  manifest  the  life-giving  divine  Word,  in 
order  that  the  readers  may  have  fellowship  with  him  and 
the  other  apostles,  and  through  them  with  God  and  Christ, 
he  defines  the  character  of  this  fellowship  and  points  out 
that,  since  God  is  light,  believers  also  should  be  and  walk 
in  the  light,  5-10,  i.  e.  they  should  guard  against  sin  and  keep 
God's  commandments,  2 :  1-6.  He  reminds  the  readers  of 
the  great  commandment,  which  is  at  once  old  and  new,  that 
they  should  love  the  brethren,  7-14;  and  in  connection  with 
this  warns  them  not  to  love  the  world,  and  to  beware  of  the 
false  teachers  that  deny  the  truth,  15-27. 

The  representation  of  God  as  light  now  passes  over  into 
that  of  God  as  righteous,  and  the  writer  insists  that  only  he 
that  is  righteous  can  be  a  child  of  God,  2 :  28 — 3 :  6.  He 
reminds  the  readers  of  the  fact  that  to  be  righteous  is  to  do 
righteousness,  which  in  turn  is  identical  with  love  to  the 
brethren,  7-17.  Once  more  he  warns  the  readers  against  the 
love  of  the  world,  and  points  out  that  the  commandment  of 
God  includes  two  things,  viz.  belief  in  Christ  and  love  to 
the  brethren,  18-24. 

In  view  of  the  false  teachers  he  next  reminds  the  readers 
that  the  test  of  having  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  to  be  found  in 
the  true  confession  of  Christ,  in  adherence  to  the  teaching 
of  the  apostles,  and  in  that  faith  in  Jesus  that  is  the  condition 
of  love  and  of  true  spiritual  life,  4 :  1 — 5 :  12.  Finally  he 
states  the  object  of  the  Epistle  once  more,  and  gives  a  brief 
summary  of  what  he  has  written,  13-21. 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN  317 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  The  literary  form  of  this  Epistle  is  different  from 
that  of  all  the  other  New  Testament  letters,  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  and  that  of  James  resembling  it  most  in  this 
respect.  Like  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  it  does  not  name 
its  author  nor  its  original  readers,  and  contains  no  apostolic 
blessing  at  the  beginning ;  and  in  agreement  with  that  of 
James  it  has  no  formal  conclusion,  no  greetings  and  saluta- 
tions at  the  end.  This  feature  led  some  to  deny  its  epis- 
tolary character;  yet,  taking  everything  into  consideration, 
the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  it  is  an  Epistle  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  and  not  a  didactic  treatise.  "The  free- 
dom of  the  style,  the  use  of  such  direct  terms  as,  'I  write 
unto  you,'  *I  wrote  unto  you,'  and  the  footing  on  which 
writer  and  readers  stand  to  each  other  all  through  its  con- 
tents, show  it  to  be  no  formal  composition."  (Salmond) 
Moreover  it  reveals  no  such  plan  as  would  be  expected  in  a 
treatise.  The  order  found  in  it  is  determined  by  association 
rather  than  by  logic,  the  thoughts  being  grouped  about  cer- 
tain clearly  related,  ruling  ideas. 

2.  The  great  affinity  of  this  Epistle  with  the  Gospel  of 
John  naturally  attracts  attention.  The  two  are  very  similar 
in  the  general  conception  of  the  truth,  in  the  specific  way  of 
representing  things,  and  in  style  and  expression.  Besides 
there  are  several  passages  in  both  that  are  mutually  explan- 
atory, as  f .  i. : 

1 :  1,  2....John  1 :  1,  2,  4,  14  3:11,  16...John  15 :  12,  13 

2:  1 John  14:  16  4:  6 John  8:  47 

2:  2 John  11:51,  52  5:6 John  19:  34,  35 

2:  8 John  13:  34;  15:  10,  12  5:9 John  5:  32,  34,  36;  8:  17,  18 

2:  10 John  11:  9,  10;  12:35  5:  12 John  3:  36 

2:  23 John  15 :  23,  24  5 :  13 John  20:  31 

2:  27 John  14:  26;  16:  13  5:  14 John  14:  13,  14;  16:  23 

3 :  8,  15..John  8 :  44  5 :  20 John  17 :  3 

Hence  many  scholars  assume  a  very  intimate  connection 
of  the  Epistle  with  the  Gospel,  regarding  it  as  a  kind  of  in- 


318  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

troduction  (Light foot),  a  sort  of  dedicatory  writing  (Haus- 
rath,  Hofmann),  or  a  practical  companion  (Michaelis,  Storr, 
Eichhorn),  destined  to  accompany  the  Gospel.  At  the  same 
time  there  are  differences  of  such  a  kind  between  the  two 
writings,  as  make  it  seem  more  likely  that  the  Epistle  is  an 
independent  composition.  Cf .  Holtzmann,  £/;;/.  p.  478 ;  Sal- 
mond,  Hastings  D.  B.  Art.  I  John,  5. 

3.  The  truth  is  represented  in  this  Epistle  ideally  rather 
than  historically.  This  important  fact  is  stated  by  Salmond 
concisely  as  follows :  "The  characteristic  ideas  of  the 
Epistle  are  few  and  simple,  they  are  of  large  significance, 
and  they  are  presented  in  new  aspects  and  relations  as  often 
as  they  occur.  They  belong  to  the  region  of  primary  prin- 
ciples, realities  of  the  intuition,  certainties  of  the  experience, 
absolute  truths.  And  they  are  given  in  their  absoluteness. 
(Italics  are  ours).  The  regenerate  man  is  one  who  cannot 
sin;  Christian  faith  is  presented  in  its  ideal  character  and 
completeness ;  the  revelation  of  life  is  exhibited  in  its  final- 
ity, not  in  the  stages  of  its  historical  realization."  Cf.  espe- 
cially Weiss,  Biblical  Theology  of  the  N.  T.  II  p.  311  fif. 
Stevens,  Johannine  Theology,  p.  1  ff. 

4.  The  style  of  the  Epistle  is  very  similar  to  that  of  the 
Gospel.  Fundamental  words  and  phrases  are  often  re- 
peated, such  as  "truth,"  "love,"  "light,"  "in  the  light,"  "being 
born  of  God,"  "abiding  in  God,"  etc. ;  and  the  construction 
is  characterized  by  utter  simplicity,  the  sentences  being  co- 
ordinated rather  than  subordinated,  and  involved  sentences 
being  avoided  by  the  repetition  of  part  of  a  previous  sen- 
tence. There  is  a  remarkable  paucity  of  connecting  par- 
ticles, f .  i.  Y«P  occurs  only  three  times ;  Se  but  nine  times ; 
[i.ev  T£  and  ouv  are  not  found  at  all  (while  the  last  is  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Gospel).  On  the  other  hand  ott 
is  often  used,  and  vcat  is  the  regular  connective.  In  many 
cases  sentences  and  clauses  follow  one  another  without  con- 
necting particles,  e.  g.  2:22-24;  4:4-6,  7-10,  11-13. 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN  319 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  authorship  of  John  is  clearly  attested  by  external 
testimony.  Eusebius  says  that  Papias  employed  this  Epistle, 
and  also  that  Irenaeus  often  quoted  from  it.  The  last  asser- 
tion is  borne  out  by  the  work  against  heresies,  in  which 
Irenaeus  repeatedly  quotes  the  letter  and  ascribes  it  to  John. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  TertuUian,  Cyprian  and  Origen  all 
quote  it  by  name ;  it  is  contained  in  the  Muratorian  Frag- 
ment and  in  the  old  Latin  and  Syriac  Versions ;  and  Euse- 
bius classes  it  with  the  writings  universally'  received  by  the 
churches.  This  testimony  may  be  regarded  as  very  strong, 
especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  author  is  not  named 
in  the  Epistle. 

That  conviction  of  the  early  church  is  corroborated  by 
what  internal  evidence  we  have.  All  the  proofs  adduced  for 
the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel  also  apply  in 
the  case  of  this  Epistle,  cf .  p.  106  above.  The  two  writings 
are  so  similar  that  they  evidently  were  composed  by  the  same 
hand.  It  is  true,  there  are  some  points  of  difference,  but 
these  divergencies  are  of  such  a  kind  that  they  altogether 
preclude  the  idea  that  the  Epistle  is  the  product  of  a  forger 
trying  to  imitate  John.  The  almost  general  verdict  is  that 
he  who  wrote  the  one,  also  wrote  the  other.  From  1 :  1-3  it 
is  evident  that  the  author  has  known  Christ  in  the  flesh ;  and 
the  whole  Epistle  reveals  the  character  of  John  as  we  know 
it  from  the  Gospel  and  from  tradition. 

But  the  authenticity  of  the  letter  did  not  go  unchallenged. 
In  the  second  century  the  Alogi  and  Marcion  rejected  it, 
but  only  for  dogmatical  reasons.  The  truth  presented  in  it  did 
not  fit  their  circle  of  ideas.  The  next  attack  on  it  followed 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  when  Joseph  Scaliger  declared  that 
none  of  the  three  Epistles  that  bear  the  name  of  John,  were 
written  by  him ;  and  S.  G.  Lange  pronounced  our  letter  un- 
worthy of  an  apostle.  It  was  not  until  1820,  however,  that 
an  important  critical  assault  was  made  on  the  Epistle  by 
Bretschneider.    He  was  followed  by  the  critics  of  the  Tiibin- 


320  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

gen  school  who,  however  they  may  differ  in  the  details  of 
their  arguments,  concur  in  denying  the  Johannine  author- 
ship and  in  regarding  the  Epistle  as  a  second  century  pro- 
duction. Some  of  them,  such  as  Kostlin,  Georgii,  and  Hil- 
genfeld  maintain  that  this  Epistle  and  the  fourth  Gospel 
were  composed  by  the  same  hand,  while  others,  as  Volkmar, 
Zeller,  Davidson,  Scholten  e.  a.  regard  them  as  the  fruit  of 
two  congenial  spirits. 

The  main  arguments  against  the  Johannine  authorship 
are  the  following :  ( 1 )  The  Epistle  is  evidently  directed 
against  second  century  Gnosticism,  which  separated  in  a 
dualistic  manner  knowledge  and  conduct,  the  divine  Christ 
and  the  human  Jesus,  cf.  2:4,  9,  11;  5:6,  etc.  (2)  The 
letter  also  seems  to  be  a  polemic  against  Docetism,  another 
second  century  heresy,  cf.  4:2,  3.  (3)  There  are  references 
to  Montanism  in  the  Epistle,  as  f .  i.  where  the  writer  speaks 
of  the  moral  perfection  of  believers,  3:6,  9,  and  distin- 
guishes between  sins  unto  death  and  sins  not  unto  death, 
3 :  16,  17,  a  distinction  which,  Tertullian  says,  was  made  by 
the  Montanists.  (4)  The  difference  between  this  Epistle 
and  the  Apocalypse  is  so  great  that  it  is  impossible  that  one 
man  should  have  written  both. 

We  need  not  deny  that  the  Epistle  is  partly  an  indirect 
polemic  against  Gnosticism,  but  we  maintain  that  this  was 
an  incipient  Gnosticism  that  made  its  appearance  before  the 
end  of  the  first  century  in  the  heresy  of  Cerinthus,  so  that 
this  does  not  argue  against  the  authorship  of  John. — The 
supposed  references  to  Docetism  are  very  uncertain  indeed ; 
but  even  if  they  could  be  proved,  they  would  not  point  be- 
yond the  first  century,  for  most  of  the  Gnostics  were  also 
Docetse,  and  the  Cerinthian  heresy  may  be  called  a  species 
of  Docetism. — The  representations  of  John  have  nothing  in 
common  with  those  of  the  Montanists.  When  he  speaks  of 
the  perfection  of  believers,  he  speaks  ideally  and  not  of  a 
perfection  actually  realized  in  this  life.  Moreover  the  "sin 
unto  death"  to  which  he  refers,  is  evidently  a  complete  fall- 
ing away  from  Christ,  and  is  not  to  be  identified  with  the 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN 321 

sins  to  which  Tertullian  refers,  viz.  "murder,  idolatry,  fraud, 
denial  of  Christ,  blasphemy,  and  assuredly  also  adultery  and 
fornication." — With  reference  to  the  last  argument  we  refer 
to  what  we  have  said  above  p.  HI,  and  to  the  explanation 
given  of  the  difference  between  the  Apocalypse  and  the 
other  Johannine  writings  below  p.  321. 

DESTINATION. 

There  is  very  little  in  the  letter  that  can  help  us  to  deter- 
mine the  location  of  the  original  readers.  Because  there  is 
no  local  coloring  whatever,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Epistle 
was  sent  to  some  individual  church,  as  Ephesus  (Hug)  or 
Corinth  (Lightfoot)  ;  and  since  the  letter  favors  the  idea 
that  it  was  written  to  Gentile,  rather  than  to  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, it  is  very  improbable  that  it  was  destined  for  the 
Christians  of  Palestine  (Benson).  There  is  not  a  single  Old 
Testament  quotation  in  the  Epistle,  nor  any  reference  to  the 
Jewish  nationality  or  the  Jewish  tenets  of  the  readers.  The 
statement  of  Augustine  that  this  is  John's  letter  "ad 
Parthos"  is  very  obscure.  Some,  as  f.  i.  Grotius,  inferred 
from  it  that  the  Epistle  was  written  for  Christians  beyond 
the  Euphrates ;  but  most  generally  it  is  regarded  as  a  mis- 
taken reading  for  some  other  expression,  the  reading  izpbc, 
irapOevou?,  finding  most  favor,  which,  Gieseler  suggests,  may 
in  turn  be  a  corruption  of  the  title  tou  TrapOevou,  which  was 
commonly  given  to  John  in  early  times. 

In  all  probability  the  correct  opinion  respecting  the  des- 
tination of  this  Epistle  is  that  held  by  the  majority  of  schol- 
ars, as  Bleek,  Huther,  Davidson,  Plummer,  Westcott,  Weiss, 
Zahn,  Alford  e.  a.,  that  it  was  sent  to  the  Christians  of  Asia 
Minor  generally,  for  (1 )  that  was  John's  special  field  of  labor 
during  the  latter  part  of  his  life;  (2)  the  heresies  referred 
to  and  combated  were  rife  in  that  country ;  and  (3)  the  Gos- 
pel was  evidently  written  for  the  Christians  of  that  region, 
and  the  Epistle  presupposes  similar  circumstances. 

We  have  no  definite  information  regarding  the  condition 


322  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

of  the  original  readers.  They  had  evidently  left  behind  the 
Church's  early  struggles  for  existence  and  now  constituted 
a  recognized  xotvovi'a  of  believers,  a  community  that  placed 
its  light  over  against  the  darkness  of  the  world,  and  that 
distinguished  itself  from  the  unrighteous  by  keeping  the 
commandments  of  God.  They  only  needed  to  be  reminded 
of  their  true  character,  which  would  naturally  induce  them 
to  a  life  worthy  of  their  fellowship  with  Christ.  There 
are  dangerous  heresies  abroad,  however,  against  which  they 
must  be  warned.  The  pernicious  doctrine  of  Cerinthus,  that 
Jesus  was  not  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  threatened  the 
peace  of  their  souls ;  and  the  subtle  error,  that  one  could  be 
righteous  without  doing  righteousness,  endangered  the  fruit- 
fulness  of  their  Christian  life. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  Although  the  Epistle  is  not 
primarily  and  directly  polemical,  yet  it  was  most  likely  occa- 
sioned by  the  dangers  to  which  we  already  referred. 

As  to  the  object  of  the  letter  the  author  himself  says: 
"that  which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you 
also,  that  ye  also  may  have  fellowship  with  us ;  yea,  and 
our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father  and  with  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ,"  1:3;  and  again  in  5:13:  "These  things  have  I 
written  unto  you,  that  ye  may  know  that  ye  have  eternal  life, 
even  unto  you  that  believe  in  the  Name  of  the  Son  of  God." 
The  direct  purpose  of  the  author  is  to  give  his  readers 
authentic  instruction  regarding  the  truth  and  reality  of  the 
things  which  they,  especially  as  believers  in  Jesus  Christ, 
accepted  by  faith ;  and  to  help  them  to  see  the  natural  issues 
of  the  fellowship  to  which  they  had  been  introduced,  in  order 
that  they  might  have  a  full  measure  of  peace  and  joy  and 
life.  The  purpose  of  the  writer  is  therefore  at  once  theoreti- 
cal and  practical. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  What  we  said  above,  pp.  113,  114, 
respecting  the  date  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  place  of  its 
composition,  also  favors  the  idea  that  this  Epistle  was  writ- 


THE  FIRST  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN  323 

ten  between  the  years  80-98,  and  at  Ephesus.  It  is  impossible 
to  narrow  down  these  time-limits  any  more.  The  only 
remaining  question  is,  whether  the  Epistle  was  written  prior 
to  the  Gospel,  (Bleek,  Huther,  Reuss,  Weiss),  or  the  Gospel 
prior  to  the  Epistle  (DeWette,  Ewald,  Guericke,  Alford, 
Plummer).  It  appears  to  us  that  the  grounds  adduced  for 
the  priority  of  the  Epistle,  as  f.  i.  that  a  writing  of  momen- 
tary design  naturally  precedes  one  of  permanent  design ; 
a  letter  of  warning  to  particular  churches,  a  writing  like  the 
Gospel  addressed  to  all  Christendom, — are  very  weak.  And 
the  arguments  for  the  other  side  are  almost  equally  incon- 
clusive, although  there  is  some  force  in  the  reasoning  that 
the  Epistle  in  several  places  presupposes  a  knowledge  of  the 
Gospel,  cf.  the  points  of  resemblance  referred  to  on  p.  311 
above.  But  even  this  does  not  carry  conviction,  for  Reuss 
correctly  says :  "For  us,  the  Epistle  needs  the  Gospel  as 
a  commentary ;  but  inasmuch  as  at  the  first  it  had  one  in  the 
oral  instruction  of  the  author,  it  is  not  thereby  proved  that 
it  is  the  later."  History  of  the  N.  T.  I  p.  237.  Salmond 
and  Zahn  wisely  conclude  their  discussion  of  this  point  with 
a  non  liquet. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  canonicity  of  this  letter  was  never  doutbed  by  the 
Church.  Polycarp  and  Papias,  both  disciples  of  John,  used 
it,  and  Irenaeus,  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  directly  ascribes  it 
to  John.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  Cyprian, 
Origen  and  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  all  quote  it  by  name, 
as  a  writing  of  the  apostle  John.  It  is  referred  to  as  John's 
in  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  and  is  contained  in  the  old 
Latin  and  Syriac  Versions. 

The  abiding  significance  of  this  important  Epistle  is,  that 
it  pictures  us  ideally  the  community  of  believers,  as  a  com- 
munity of  life  in  fellowship  with  Christ,  mediated  by  the 
word  of  the  apostles,  which  is  the  Word  of  life.  It  describes 
that  community  as  the  sphere  of  life  and  light,  of  holiness 
and  righteousness,  of  love  to  God  and  to  the  brethren ;  and 


324  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

as  the  absolute  antithesis  to  the  world  with  its  darkness  and 
death,  its  pollution  and  unrighteousness,  its  hatred  and  de- 
ception. All  those  who  are  introduced  into  that  sphere 
should  of  necessity  be  holy  and  righteous  and  filled  with 
love,  and  should  avoid  the  world  and  its  lusts.  They  should 
test  the  spirits,  whether  they  be  of  God,  and  shun  all  anti- 
Christian  error.  Thus  the  Epistle  describes  for  the  Church 
of  all  ages  the  nature  and  criteria  of  heavenly  fellowship, 
and  warns  believers  to  keep  themselves  unspotted  from  the 
world. 


The  Second  and  Third 
General  Epistles  of  John. 


CONTENTS. 

The  Second  Epistle.  After  the  address  and  the  apostoHc 
blessirxg,  1-3,  the  writer  expresses  his  joy  at  finding  that 
some  of  the  children  of  the  addressee  walk  in  the  truth,  and 
reiterates  the  great  commandment  of  brotherly  love,  4-6.  He 
urges  the  readers  to  exercise  this  love  and  informs  them 
that  there  are  many  errorists,  who  deny  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh,  admonishing  them  not  to  receive  these, 
lest  they  should  become  partakers  of  their  evil  deeds,  7-11. 
Expressing  his  intention  to  come  to  them,  he  ends  his  Epistle 
with  a  greeting,  12,  13. 

The  Third  Epistle.  The  writer,  addressing  Gajus,  sin- 
cerely wishes  that  he  may  prosper,  as  his  soul  prospereth, 
1-3.  He  commends  him  for  receiving  the  itinerant  preach- 
ers, though  they  were  strangers  to  him,  5-8.  He  also  in- 
forms the  brother  that  he  has  written  to  the  church,  but 
that  Diotrephes  resists  his  authority,  not  receiving  the 
brethren  himself  and  seeking  to  prevent  others  from  doing 
it,  9,  10.  Warning  Gajus  against  that  evil  example,  he  com- 
mends Demetrius,  mentions  an  intended  visit,  and  closes  the 
Epistle  with  greetings,  11-14. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  These  two  Epistles  have  rightly  been  called  twin- 
epistles,  since  they  reveal  several  points  of  similarity.  The 
author  in  both  styles  himself  the  elder;  they  are  of  about 
equal  length ;  each  one  of  them,  as  distinguished  from  the 
first  Epistle,  begins  with  an  address  and  ends  with  greet- 


326  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

ings ;  both  contain  an  expression  of  joy ;  and  both  refer  to 
itinerant  preachers  and  to  an  intended  visit  of  the  writer. 

2.  The  letters  show  close  affinity  to  I  John.  What  little 
they  contain  of  doctrinal  matter  is  closely  related  to  the  con- 
tents of  the  first  Epistle,  where  we  can  easily  find  statements 
corresponding  to  those  in  II  John  4-9  and  III  John  11. 
Several  concepts  and  expressions  clearly  remind  us  of 
I  John,  as  f.  i.  "love,"  "truth,"  "commandments,"  "a  new 
commandment,"  one  "which  you  had  from  the  beginning," 
"loving  truth,"  "walking  in  the  truth,"  "abiding  in"  one,  "a 
joy  that  may  be  fulfilled,"  etc.  Moreover  the  aim  of  these 
letters  is  in  general  the  same  as  that  of  the  first  Epistle,  viz. 
to  strengthen  the  readers  in  the  truth  and  in  love ;  and  to 
warn  them  against  an  incipient  Gnosticism. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

Considering  the  brevity  of  these  Epistles,  their  author- 
ship is  very  well  attested.  Clement  of  Alexandria  speaks 
of  the  second  Epistle  and,  according  to  Eusebius,  also  com- 
mented on  the  third.  Irenaeus  quotes  the  second  Epistle  by 
name,  ascribing  it  to  "John  the  Lord's  disciple."  Tertullian 
and  Cyprian  contain  no  quotations  from  them,  but  Dionysius 
of  Alexandria,  Athanasius  and  Didymus  received  them  as 
the  work  of  the  apostle.  The  Muratorian  Canon  in  a  rather 
obscure  passage  mentions  two  Epistles  of  John  besides  the 
first  one.  The  Peshito  does  not  contain  them ;  and  Eusebius, 
without  clearly  giving  his  own  opinion,  reckons  them  with 
the  Antilegomena.  After  his  time  they  were  generally  re- 
ceived and  as  such  recognized  by  the  councils  of  Laodicea 
(363),  Hippo  (393)  and  Carthage  (397). 

Internal  evidence  may  be  said  to  favor  the  authorship  of 
John.  One  can  scarcely  read  these  letters  without  feeling 
that  they  proceeded  from  the  same  hand  that  composed 
I  John.  The  second  Epistle  especially  is  very  similar  to  the 
first,  a  similarity  that  can  hardly  be  explained,  as  Baljon 
suggests,  from  an  acquaintance  of  the  author  with  I  John, 
Iiil.  p.  237,  239.    And  the  third  Epistle  is  inseparably  linked 


THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD   GEN.  EPIS.  OF  JOHN  327 

to  the  second.  The  use  of  a  few  Pauline  terms,  TupoxetxTietv, 
euoSoudOat  and  uYtat'vecv,  and  of  a  few  peculiar  words,  as 
9Xuapstv,  ftXoTuptOTSustv  UTCoXa[x^aveiv,  prove  nothing  to  the 
contrary. 

The  great  stumbling  block,  that  prevents  several  scholars 
from  accepting  the  apostolic  authorship  of  these  Epistles,  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  author  simply  styles  himself 
6  xpsa^uxepo?.  This  appellation  led  some,  as  Erasmus, 
Grotius,  Beck,  Bretschneider,  Hase,  Renan,  Reuss,  Wieseler 
e.  a.,  to  ascribe  them  to  a  certain  well-known  presbyter  John, 
distinct  from  the  apostle.  This  opinion  is  based  on  a  pass- 
age of  Papias,  as  it  is  interpreted  by  Eusebius,  The  pass- 
age runs  thus :  "If  I  met  anywhere  with  anyone  who  had 
been  a  follower  of  the  elders,  I  used  to  inquire  what  were 
the  declarations  of  the  elders ;  what  was  said  by  Andrew,  by 
Peter,  by  Philip,  what  by  Thomas  or  James,  what  by  John 
or  Matthew,  or  any  other  of  the  disciples  of  our  Lord ;  and 
the  things  which  Aristion  and  the  presbyter  John,  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  Lord  say ;  for  I  did  not  expect  to  derive  so 
much  benefit  from  the  contents  of  books  as  from  the  utter- 
ances of  a  living  and  abiding  voice."  From  this  statement 
Eusebius  infers  that  among  the  informants  of  Papias  there 
was  besides  the  apostle  John  also  a  John  the  presbyter, 
Church  Hist.  Ill  39.  But  the  correctness  of  this  inference 
is  subject  to  doubt.  Notice  (1)  that  Papias  first  names 
those  whose  words  he  received  through  others  and  then 
mentions  two  of  whom  he  had  also  received  personal  instruc- 
tion, cf.  the  difference  in  tense,  elTcev  and  XsYOuatv;  (2) 
that  it  seems  very  strange  that  for  Papias,  who  was  himself 
a  disciple  of  the  apostle  John,  anyone  but  the  apostle  would 
be  6  Tcpea^uxepo? ;  (3)  that  Eusebius  was  the  first  to  dis- 
cover this  second  John  in  the  passage  of  Papias :  (4)  that 
history  knows  nothing  of  such  a  John  the  presbyter ;  he  is 
a  shadowy  person  indeed;  and  (5)  that  the  Church  historian 
was  not  unbiased  in  his  opinion ;  being  averse  to  the  supposed 


328  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Chiliasm  of  the  Apocalypse,  he  was  only  too  glad  to  find 
another  John  to  whom  he  could  ascribe  it. 

But  even  if  the  inference  of  Eusebius  were  correct,  it 
would  not  prove  that  this  presbyter  was  the  author  of  our 
Epistles.  The  same  passage  of  Papias  clearly  establishes 
the  fact  that  the  apostles  were  also  called  elders  in  the  early 
Church.  And  does  not  the  appellation,  6  Tupea^Su-rspoi;,  ad- 
mirably fit  the  last  of  the  apostles,  who  for  many  years  was 
the  overseer  of  the  churches  in  Asia  Minor?  He  stood  pre- 
eminent above  all  others ;  and  by  using  this  name  designated 
at  once  his  official  position  and  his  venerable  age. 

DESTINATION. 

The  second  Epistle  is  addressed  to  "ivXzv.iri  ^t>P'<?  and 
her  children,  whom  I  love  in  truth,  and  not  only  I,  but  all 
those  that  know  the  truth,"  1:1.  There  is  a  great  deal  of 
uncertainty  about  the  interpretation  of  this  address.  On  the 
assumption  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  an  individual, 
the  following  renderings  have  been  proposed :  ( 1 )  to  an 
elect  lady  ;  (2)  to  the  elect  lady ;  (3)  to  the  elect  Kuria  ;  (4) 
to  the  Lady  Electa;  (5)  to  Electa  Kuria. 

The  first  of  these  is  certainly  the  simplest  and  the 
most  natural  one,  but  considered  as  the  address  of  an  Epistle, 
it  is  too  indefinite.  To  our  mind  the  second,  which  seems 
to  be  grammatically  permissible,  is  the  best  of  all  the  sug- 
gested interpretations.  As  to  the  third,  it  is  true  that  the 
word  xupt'a  does  occur  as  a  proper  name,  cf.  Zahn,  Einl. 
II  p.  584 ;  but  on  the  supposition  that  this  is  the  case  here 
also,  it  would  be  predicated  of  a  single  individual,  which  in 
Scripture  is  elsewhere  done  only  in  Rom.  16:  13,  a  case  that 
is  not  altogether  parallel ;  and  the  more  natural  construction 
would  be  xupt'a  t^  exXey.x'^.  Cf.  Ill  John  1:1;  the  case  in 
I  Pet.  1  :1  does  not  offer  a  parallel,  because  xapsTctS-^ptot? 
is  not  a  proper  noun.  The  fourth  must  be  ruled  out,  since 
ez-Xexxa  is  not  known  to  occur  as  a  nomen  proprium ;  and  if 
this  were  the  name  of  the  addressee,  her  sister,  vs.  13,  would 


THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD   GEN.  EPIS.  OF  JOHN         329 

strangely  bear  the  same  name.  The  last  rendering  is  the 
least  likely,  burdening  the  lady,  as  it  does,  with  two  strange 
names.  If  the  letter  was  addressed  to  an  individual,  which 
is  favored  by  the  analogy  of  the  third  Epistle,  and  also  by 
the  fact  that  the  sister's  children  are  spoken  of  in  vs.  13, 
while  she  herself  is  not  mentioned,  then  in  all  probability 
the  addressee  was  a  lady  well  known  and  highly  esteemed 
in  the  early  church,  but  not  named  in  the  letter.  Thus 
Salmond  (Hastings  D.  B.),  while  Alford  and  D.  Smith  re- 
gard Kuria  as  the  name  of  the  lady. 

In  view  of  the  contents  of  the  Epistle,  however,  many 
from  the  time  of  Jerome  on  have  regarded  the  title  as  a 
designation  of  the  Church  in  general  (Jerome,  Hilgenfeld, 
Liinemann,  Schmiedel),  or  of  some  particular  church 
(Huther,  Holtzmann,  Weiss,  Westcott,  Salmon,  Zahn,  Bal- 
jon).  The  former  of  these  two  seems  to  be  excluded  by 
vs.  13,  since  the  Church  in  general  can  hardly  be  represented 
as  having  a  sister.  But  as  over  against  the  view  that  the 
Epistle  was  addressed  to  an  individual,  the  latter  is  favored 
by  ( 1 )  the  fact  that  everything  of  a  personal  nature  is  ab- 
sent from  the  Epistle;  (2)  the  plurals  which  the  apostle 
constantly  uses,  cf.  6,  8,  10,  12;  (3)  the  way  in  which  he 
speaks  to  the  addressee  in  vss.  5,  8;  (4)  the  expression, 
"and  not  I  only,  but  also  all  they  that  have  known  the  truth," 
1,  which  is  more  applicable  to  a  church  than  to  a  single  in- 
dividual;  and  (5)  the  greeting,  13,  which  is  most  naturally 
understood  as  the  greeting  of  one  church  to  another.  If  this 
view  of  the  Epistle  is  correct,  and  we  are  inclined  to  think 
it  is,  xupta  is  probably  used  as  the  feminine  of  /.upto?,  in 
harmony  with  the  Biblical  representation  that  the  Church 
is  the  bride  of  the  Lamb.  It  is  useless  to  guess,  however, 
what  particular  church  is  meant.  Since  the  church  of 
Ephesus  is  in  all  probability  the  sister,  it  is  likely  that  one  of 
the  other  churches  of  Asia  Minor  is  addressed. 

The  third  Epistle  is  addressed  to  a  certain  Gajus,  of 
whom  we  have  no  knowledge  beyond  that  gained  from  the 


330  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Epistle,  where  he  is  spoken  of  as  a  beloved  friend  of  the 
apostle,  and  as  a  large-hearted  hospitable  man,  who  with  a 
willing  heart  served  the  cause  of  Christ.  There  have  been 
some  attempts  to  identify  him  with  a  Gajus  who  is  men- 
tioned in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  as  having  been  ap- 
pointed bishop  of  Pergamum  by  John,  or  with  some  of  the 
other  persons  of  the  same  name  in  Scripture,  Acts  19 :  29 ; 
20:4,  especially  with  Paul's  host  at  Corinth,  Rom.  16:23; 
I  Cor.  1:14;  but  these  efforts  have  not  been  crowned  with 
success. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  In  all  probability  the  false 
agitators  to  whom  the  apostle  refers  in  the  second  Epistle, 
7-12,  gave  him  occasion  to  write  this  letter.  His  aim  is  to 
express  his  joy  on  account  of  the  obedience  of  some  of  the 
members  of  the  church,  to  exhort  all  that  they  love  one  an- 
other, to  warn  them  against  deceivers  who  would  pervert  the 
truth,  and  to  announce  his  coming. 

The  third  Epistle  seems  to  have  been  occasioned  by  the 
reports  of  certain  brethren  who  traveled  about  from  place 
to  place  and  were  probably  engaged  in  preaching  the  Gospel. 
They  reported  to  the  apostle  that  they  had  enjoyed  the  hos- 
pitality of  Gajus,  but  had  met  with  a  rebuff  at  the  hands  of 
Diotrephes,  an  ambitious  fellow  (probably,  as  some  have 
thought,  an  elder  or  a  deacon  in  the  church),  who  resisted 
the  authority  of  the  apostle  and  refused  to  receive  the 
brethren.  The  author's  purpose  is  to  express  his  satisfaction 
with  the  course  pursued  by  Gajus,  to  condemn  the  attitude 
of  Diotrephes,  to  command  Demetrius  as  a  worthy  brother, 
and  to  announce  an  intended  visit. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  The  assumption  seems  perfectly 
warranted  that  John  wrote  these  Epistles  from  Ephesus, 
where  he  spent  perhaps  the  last  twenty-five  years  of  his  life. 
We  have  no  means  for  determining  the  time  when  they 
were  composed.  It  may  safely  be  said,  however,  that  it  was 
after  the  composition  of  I  John.    And  if  the  surmise  of  Zahn 


THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD   GEN.  EPIS.  OF  JOHN         331 

and  Salmon  is  correct,  that  the  letter  referred  to  in  III  John 
9  is  our  second  Epistle,  they  were  probably  written  at  the 
same  time.  This  idea  is  favored  somewhat  by  the  fact  that 
the  expression,  "I  wrote  somewhat  (i^pcci^d  Tt)  to  the 
church,"  seems  to  refer  to  a  short  letter;  and  by  the  men- 
tion of  an  intended  visit  at  the  end  of  each  letter.  But  from 
the  context  it  would  appear  that  this  letter  must  have  treated 
of  the  reception  or  the  support  of  the  missionary  brethren, 
which  is  not  the  case  with  our  second  Epistle. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

There  was  some  doubt  at  first  as  to  the  canonicity  of 
these  Epistles.  The  Alexandrian  church  generally  accepted 
them,  Clement,  Dionysius  and  Alexander  of  Alexandria  all 
recognizing  them  as  canonical,  though  Origen  had  doubts. 
Irenaeus  cites  a  passage  from  the  second  Epistle  as  John's. 
Since  neither  Tertullian  nor  Cyprian  quote  them,  it  is  uncer- 
tain, whether  they  were  accepted  by  the  North  African 
church.  The  Muratorian  Fragment  mentions  two  letters  of 
John  in  a  rather  obscure  way.  In  the  Syrian  church  they 
were  not  received,  since  they  were  not  in  the  Peshito,  but  in 
the  fourth  century  Ephrem  quotes  both  by  name.  Eusebius 
classed  them  with  the  Antilegomena,  but  soon  after  his  time 
they  were  universally  accepted  as  canonical. 

The  permanent  significance  of  the  second  Epistle  is  that 
it  emphasizes  the  necessity  of  abiding  in  the  truth  and  thus 
exhibiting  one's  love  to  Christ.  To  abide  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  and  to  obey  his  commandments,  is  the  test  of  sonship. 
Hence  believers  should  not  receive  those  who  deny  the  true 
doctrine,  and  especially  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  lest  they 
become  partakers  of  their  evil  deeds. 

The  third  Epistle  also  has  its  permanent  lesson,  in  that  it 
commends  the  generous  love  that  reveals  itself  in  the  hospi- 
tality of  Gajus,  shown  to  those  who  labor  in  the  cause  of 
Christ,  and  denounce  the  self -centered  activity  of  Dio- 
trephes ;  for  these  two  classes  of  men  are  always  found  in 
the  Church. 


The  General  Epistle  of  Jude. 


CONTENTS. 

The  writer  begins  his  Epistle  with  the  regular  address 
and  apostolic  blessing,  1,  2.  He  informs  his  readers  that  he 
felt  it  incumbent  on  him  to  warn  them  against  certain  in- 
truders, who  deny  Christ,  lead  lascivious  lives  and  will  cer- 
tainly be  punished  like  the  people  delivered  from  Egypt,  the 
fallen  angels  and  the  cities  of  the  plain,  3-7.  These  intrud- 
ers are  further  described  as  defilers  of  the  flesh  and  as  de- 
spisers  and  blasphemers  of  heavenly  dignities,  and  the  woe 
is  pronounced  on  them,  8-11.  After  giving  a  further  de- 
scription of  their  debauchery,  the  author  exhorts  the  readers 
to  be  mindful  of  the  words  of  the  apostles,  who  had  spoken 
of  the  appearance  of  such  mockers,  12-19.  Admonishing 
them  to  increase  in  faith  and  to  keep  themselves  in  the  love 
of  God,  and  giving  them  directions  as  to  the  correct  be- 
haviour towards  others,  he  concludes  his  Epistle  with  a 
doxology,  20-25. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  This  Epistle  is  characterized  by  its  very  close  re- 
semblence  to  parts  of  II  Peter.  Since  we  have  already  dis- 
cussed the  relation  in  which  the  two  stand  to  each  other 
(cf.  p.  307  above),  we  now  simply  refer  to  that  discussion. 

2.  The  letter  is  peculiar  also  in  that  it  contains  quota- 
tions from  the  apocryphal  books.  The  story  in  verse  9  is 
taken  from  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  according  to  which 
Michael  was  commissioned  to  bury  Moses,  but  satan  claimed 
the  body,  in  the  first  place  because  he  was  the  lord  of  matter, 
and  in  the  second  place  since  Moses  had  committed  murder 
in  Egypt.  The  falsity  of  the  first  ground  is  brought  out  by 
Michael,  when  he  says :    "The  Lord  rebuke  thee,  for  it  was 


THE  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  333 


God's  Spirit  which  created  the  word  and  all  mankind."  He 
does  not  reflect  on  the  second.  The  prophecy  in  verses  14, 
15  is  taken  from  the  Book  of  Enoch,  a  book  that  was  highly 
esteemed  by  the  early  church.  According  to  some  the  state- 
ment regarding  the  fallen  angels,  verse  6,  is  also  derived 
from  it.  The  latest  editor  of  these  writings,  R.  H.  Charles, 
regards  the  first  as  a  composite  work,  made  up  of  two  dis- 
tinct books,  viz.  the  Testament  and  the  Assumption  of 
Moses,  of  which  the  former,  and  possibly  also  the  latter 
was  written  in  Hebrew  between  7  and  29  A.  D.  With  re- 
spect to  the  Book  of  Enoch  he  holds,  "that  the  larger  part 
of  the  book  was  written  not  later  than  160  B.  C,  and  that  no 
part  of  it  is  more  recent  than  the  Christian  era."  Quoted 
by  Mayor,  Exp.  Gk.  Test.  V  p.  234. 

3.  The  language  of  Jude  may  best  be  likened  to  that  of 
his  brother  James.  He  speaks  in  a  tone  of  unquestioned 
authority  and  writes  a  vigorous  style.  His  Greek,  though  it 
has  a  Jewish  complexion,  is  fairly  correct ;  and  his  descrip- 
tions are  often  just  as  picturesque  as  those  of  James,  f.  i. 
when  he  compares  the  intruders  to  "spots  (R.  V.  'hidden 
rocks')  in  the  feasts  of  charity;"  "clouds  without  water, 
carried  along  by  winds,"  "autumn  trees  without  fruit,  twice 
dead,  plucked  up  by  the  roots,"  "wild  waves  of  the  sea,  foam- 
ing out  their  own  shame;"  etc.,  12,  13.  Like  James  also  he 
employs  some  words  that  are  otherwise  exclusively  Pauline, 
as  atStoi;,  xuptoxY]?,  ocx-Yi-ci^ptov,  TupoYpafpstv.  Moreover  the 
letter  contains  a  few  aza^  XeyopLeva. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  Muratorian  Canon  accepts  Jude,  but  indicates  that 
it  was  doubted  by  some.  Clement  of  Alexandria  commented 
on  it,  and  Tertullian  quotes  it  by  name.  Origen  acknowl- 
edges that  there  were  doubts  as  to  the  canonicity  of  Jude, 
but  does  not  seem  to  have  shared  them.  Didymus  of 
Alexandria  defends  the  Epistle  against  those  who  questioned 
its  authority  on  account  of  the  use  made  in  it  of  apocryphal 
books.    Eusebius  reckoned  it  with  the  Antilegomena ;  but  it 


334  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

was  accepted  as  canonical  by  the  third  council  of  Carthage 
in  397  A.  D. 

The  author  designates  himself  as  "Jude  the  servant  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James.  There  are  several 
persons  of  that  name  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  of 
which  only  two  can  come  in  consideration  here,  however, 
viz.  Jude,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  Mt.  13:55;  Mk.  6:3, 
and  Jude  the  apostle,  Lk.  6:16;  Acts  1:13,  also  called 
Lebbeus,  Mt.  10:3,  and  Thaddeus,  Mk.  3:  18.  It  appears 
to  us  that  the  author  was  Jude,  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
because:  (1)  He  seeks  to  give  a  clear  indication  of  his 
identity  by  calling  himself,  "the  brother  of  James."  This 
James  must  have  been  so  well  known,  therefore,  as  to  need 
no  further  description ;  and  there  was  but  one  James  at 
that  time  of  whom  this  could  be  said,  viz.  James  the  brother 
of  the  Lord.  (2)  It  is  inconceivable  that  an  apostle,  rather 
than  name  his  official  position,  should  make  himself  known 
by  indicating  his  relationship  to  another  person,  whoever 
that  person  might  be.  (3)  Though  it  is  possible  that  the 
writer,  even  if  he  were  an  apostle,  should  speak  as  he  does 
in  the  17th  verse,  that  passage  seems  to  imply  that  he  stood 
outside  of  the  apostolic  circle. — In  favor  of  the  view  that 
the  author  was  the  apostle  Jude,  some  have  appealed  to 
Lk.  6:16;  Acts  1:13,  where  the  apostle  is  called  TouSa? 
Taxco^ou  but  it  is  contrary  to  established  usage  to  supply 
the  word  brother  in  such  a  case. 

Very  little  is  known  of  this  Jude.  If  the  order  in  which 
the  brethren  of  the  Lord  are  named  in  Scripture  is  any  indi- 
cation of  their  age,  he  was  the  youngest  or  the  youngest  but 
one  of  the  group  ;  compare  Mt.  13  :  55  with  Mk.  6:  3.  ¥/ith 
his  brothers  he  was  not  a  believer  in  Jesus  during  the  Lord's 
public  ministry,  John  7 :  5,  but  evidently  embraced  him  by 
faith  after  the  resurrection.  Acts  1  :  14.  For  the  rest  we 
can  only  gather  from  I  Cor.  9 :  5  respecting  the  brethren  of 
the  Lord  in  general,  undoubtedly  with  the  exception  of 
James,  who  resided  at  Jerusalem,  that  they  traveled  about 


THE  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  335 

with  their  wives,  willing  workers  for  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
and  were  even  known  at  Corinth. 

The  authenticity  of  the  Epistle  has  been  doubted,  be- 
cause: (1)  The  author  speaks  of  faith  in  the  objective 
sense,  as  a  fides  quae  creditnr,  3,  20,  a  usage  that  points  to 
the  post-apostolic  period;  (2)  He  mentions  the  apostles  as 
persons  who  lived  in  the  distant  past,  17;  and  (3)  he  evi- 
dently combats  the  second  century  heresy  of  the  Carpocra- 
tians.  But  these  grounds  are  very  questionable  indeed.  The 
word  faith  is  employed  in  the  objective  sense  elsewhere  in 
the  New  Testament,  most  certainly  in  the  Pastorals,  and 
probably  also  in  Rom.  10:8;  Gal.  1 :  23  ;  Phil.  1 :  27.  And 
there  is  nothing  impossible  in  the  assumption  that  that  mean- 
ing should  have  become  current  in  the  time  of  the  apostles. 
The  manner  in  which  Jude  mentions  the  apostles  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  they  had  all  passed  away  before  this 
letter  was  composed.  At  most  the  death  of  a  few  is  implied. 
But  we  agree  with  Dr.  Chase,  when  he  judges  that  the  sup- 
position that  the  apostles  were  dispersed  in  such  a  way  that 
their  voice  could  not  at  the  time  reach  the  persons  to  whom 
this  letter  is  addressed,  meets  all  the  requirements  of  the 
case.  Hastings  D.  B.  Art.  Jude.  The  assumption  that  the 
heretics  referred  to  were  second  century  Carpocratians,  is 
entirely  gratuitous ;  it  rests  on  a  mistaken  interpretation  of 
three  passages,  viz.  the  verses  4b,  8,  19. 

DESTINATION. 

Jude  addresses  his  Epistle  to  "those  that  are  sanctified 
by  God  the  Father,  and  preserved  in  Jesus  Christ,  and 
called."  On  account  of  the  very  general  character  of  this 
designation  some,  as  Ewald,  regard  the  Epistle  as  a  circular 
letter ;  but  the  contents  of  the  Epistle  are  against  this  as- 
sumption. Yet  we  are  left  entirely  to  conjecture  as  to  the 
particular  locality  in  which  the  readers  dwelt.  Some  schol- 
are,  e.  g.  Alford  and  Zahn,  believe  that  the  Epistle  was  writ- 
ten to  Jewish  readers,  but  we  are  inclined  to  think  with 
Weiss,  Chase,  Bigg,  Baljon  e.  a.  that  the  recipients  of  the 


336  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

letter  were  Gentile  Christians,  (1)  because  the  letter  is  so 
closely  related  to  II  Peter,  which  was  sent  to  the  Christians 
of  Asia  Minor;  and  (2)  since  the  heresies  to  which  it  refers 
are  known  to  have  arisen  in  Gentile  churches.  Cf .  especially 
I  Corinthians  and  the  letters  to  the  seven  churches  in  the 
Apocalypse. 

Many  expositors  are  inclined  to  look  for  the  first  readers 
in  Asia  Minor  on  account  of  the  resemblance  of  the  heresies 
mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  those  referred  to  in  II  Peter. 
But  possibly  it  is  better  to  hold  with  Chase  that  the  letter 
was  sent  to  Syrian  Antioch  and  the  surrounding  district, 
since  they  had  evidently  received  oral  instruction  from  the 
apostles  generally,  and  were  therefore  most  Hkely  in  the 
vicinity  of  Palestine.  Moreover  Jude  may  have  felt  some 
special  responsibility  for  the  church  in  that  vicinity  since 
the  death  of  his  brother  James. 

In  the  condition  of  the  readers  there  was  cause  for 
alarm.  The  danger  that  Peter  saw  as  a  cloud  on  the  distant 
horizon,  Jude  espied  as  a  leaven  that  was  already  working 
in  the  ranks  of  his  readers.  False  brethren  had  crept  into 
the  church  who  were,  it  would  seem,  practical  libertines, 
enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  who  abused  their  Christian 
liberty  (Alford,  Salmon,  Weiss,  Chase),  and  not  at  the  same 
time  heretical  teachers  (Zahn,  Baljon).  Perhaps  they  were 
no  teachers  at  all.  Their  life  was  characterized  by  lascivi- 
ousness,  4,  especially  fornication,  7,  8,  11,  mockery,  10,  un- 
godliness, 15,  murmuring,  complaining,  pride  and  greed,  16. 
Their  fundamental  error  seems  to  have  been  that  they  de- 
spised and  spoke  evil  of  the  authorities  that  were  placed  over 
them.  They  were  Antinomians  and  certainly  had  a  great 
deal  in  common  with  the  Nicolaitans  of  the  Apocalypse. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.  Occasion  and  Purpose.  The  danger  to  which  these 
Christians  were  thus  exposed,  led  to  the  composition  of  this 
Epistle.  Apparently  Jude  intended  to  write  to  them  of  the 
common  salvation,  when  he  suddenly  heard  of  the  grave 


THE  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  337 

situation  and  found  it  necessary  to  pen  a  word  of  warning, 
3.  In  the  verse  from  which  we  draw  this  conclusion,  the 
author  also  clearly  states  his  aim,  when  he  says  that  he 
deemed  it  imperative  to  write  to  them  that  they  should  earn- 
estly contend  for  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  to  the 
saints.  In  order  to  do  this,  he  pictures  to  them  the  dis- 
obedient and  immoral  character  of  the  ungodly  persons  that 
had  unawares  crept  into  the  fold  and  endangered  their 
Christian  faith  and  life ;  reminds  them  of  the  fact  that  God 
would  certainly  punish  those  wanton  libertines,  just  as  He 
had  punished  sinners  in  the  past ;  and  exhorts  them  to  stand 
in  faith  and  to  strive  after  hohness. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  We  have  absolutely  no  indication 
of  the  place  where  this  Epistle  v/as  written ;  it  is  not  un- 
likely, however,  that  it  was  at  Jerusalem. 

With  respect  to  the  time  of  its  composition  we  have  a 
terminus  ad  quern  in  the  date  of  II  Peter,  about  A.  D.  67, 
since  that  Epistle  is  evidently  dependent  on  Jude.  On  the 
other  hand  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  Jude  would  write 
such  a  letter,  while  his  brother  James  was  still  living,  so 
that  we  have  a  terminus  a  quo  in  A.  D.  62.  A  date  later 
than  62  is  also  favored  by  the  Pauline  words  employed  in 
this  letter,  in  some  of  which  we  seem  to  have  an  echo  of 
Ephesians  and  Colossians.  Moreover  the  great  similarity 
between  the  conditions  pictured  in  this  letter  and  those  de- 
scribed in  II  Peter  is  best  explained,  if  we  date  them  in 
close  proximity  to  each  other.  We  shall  not  go  far  wrong 
in  dating  the  Epistle  about  the  year  65. 

The  older  critics  of  the  Tubingen  school  dated  the  Epistle 
late  in  the  second  century,  while  more  recent  critics,  as 
Pfleiderer,  Holtzmann,  Jiilicher,  Harnack,  Baljon,  think  it 
originated  about  the  middle  or  in  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century.  They  draw  this  conclusion  from,  (1)  the  way  in 
which  the  writer  speaks  of  faith,  3,  20;  (2)  the  manner  in 
which  he  refers  to  the  apostles,  17;  (3)  the  use  of  the 
apocryphal  books ;  and  (4)  the  supposed  references  to  the 


338  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

doctrines  of  the  Carpocratians.     But  these  arguments  can 
all  be  met  by  counter-arguments,  cf.  above. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

In  the  early  Church  there  was  considerable  doubt  as  to 
the  canonicity  of  this  Epistle,  especially  because  it  was  not 
written  by  an  apostle,  and  contained  passages  from  apocry- 
phal books.  There  are  allusions  more  or  less  clear  to  the 
Epistle  in  II  Peter,  Poly  carp,  Athenagoras  and  Theophilus 
of  Antioch.  The  Muratorian  Canon  mentions  it,  but  in  a 
manner  which  implies  that  it  was  doubted  by  some.  It  is 
found  in  the  old  Latin  Version,  but  not  in  the  Peshito. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  TertuUian  and  Origen  recognized  it, 
though  Origen  intimates  that  there  were  doubts  regarding 
its  canonicity.  Eusebius  doubted  its  canonical  authority,  but 
the  council  of  Carthage  (397)  accepted  it. 

In  the  Epistle  of  Jude  we  have  the  Christian  war-cry, 
resounding  through  the  ages :  Contend  earnestly  for  the 
faith  that  was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints !  This  letter, 
the  last  of  the  New  Testament,  teaches  with  great  emphasis 
that  apostacy  from  the  true  creed  with  its  central  truths  of 
the  atonement  of  Christ  and  the  permanent  validity  of  the 
law  as  the  rule  of  life,  is  assured  perdition ;  and  clearly  re- 
veals for  all  generations  the  inseparable  connection  between 
a  correct  belief  and  a  right  mode  of  living. 


The  Revelation  of  John. 


CONTENTS. 

After  the  introduction  and  the  apostoHc  blessing,  1 :  1-8, 
the  book  contains  seven  visions  or  series  of  visions,  extend- 
ing from  1 :  9 — 22 :  7,  followed  by  a  conclusion,  22 :  8-21. 

/.  The  first  Vision,  1 :  9 — 3  :  22,  is  that  of  the  glorified 
Christ  in  the  midst  of  the  Church,  directing  John  to  w^rite 
letters  of  reproof,  of  warning,  of  exhortation  and  of  conso- 
lation to  seven  representative  churches  of  proconsular  Asia, 
viz.  to  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  Pergamus,  Thyatire,  Sardis,  Phila- 
delphia and  Laodicea. 

//.  The  second  Vision,  4:  1 — 8:  1,  reveals  God  as  ruling 
the  world's  destiny,  and  the  Lamb  as  taking  the  book  of  the 
divine  decrees  and  breaking  the  seven  seals  of  which  each 
one  represents  a  part  of  God's  purpose,  the  first  four  refer- 
ring to  the  terrestrial,  and  the  last  three  to  the  celestial 
sphere.  Between  the  sixth  and  seventh  seals  an  episode  is 
introduced  to  show  the  safety  of  the  people  of  God  amid 
the  judgments  that  are  inflicted  on  the  world. 

///.  The  third  Vision,  8:2 — 11:19.  shows  us  seven 
angels,  each  one  having  a  trumpet.  After  an  angel  has 
offered  up  the  prayers  of  the  saints  to  God,  the  seven  angels 
blow  their  trumpets,  and  each  trumpet  is  followed  by  a 
vision  of  destruction  on  the  sinful  world,  the  destruction  of 
the  last  three  being  more  severe  than  that  of  the  first  four. 
Between  the  sixth  and  seventh  trumpets  there  is  again  an 
episode  describing  the  preservation  of  the  Church. 

IV.  The  fourth  Vision,  12:1 — 14:20,  describes  the 
conflict  of  the  world  with  the  Church  of  God.  The  Church 
is  represented  as  a  woman  bringing  forth  the  Christ,  against 
whom  the  dragon  representing  satan  wages  war.    In  succes- 


340  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

sive  visions  we  behold  the  beasts  which  satan  will  employ 
as  his  agents,  the  militant  Church,  and  the  advancing  stages 
of  Christ's  conquest. 

V.  The  fifth  Vision,  15:1 — 16:21,  once  more  reveals 
seven  angels,  now  having  seven  vials  or  bowls  containing 
the  last  plagues  or  judgments  of  God.  First  we  have  a  de- 
scription of  the  Church  that  triumphed  over  the  beast,  glori- 
fying God  ;  and  this  is  followed  by  a  picture  of  the  sevenfold 
judgment  of  God  on  the  world,  represented  by  the  seven 
vials. 

VI.  The  sixth  Vision,  17:  1 — 20:  15,  reveals  the  harlot 
city  Babylon,  the  representative  of  the  world,  and  the  victory 
of  Christ  over  her  and  over  the  enemies  that  are  in  league 
with  her,  the  great  conflict  ending  in  the  last  judgment. 

VII.  The  seventh  Vision,  21 :  1 — 22 :  7,  discloses  to  the 
eye  the  ideal  Church,  the  new  Jerusalem,  and  pictures  in 
glowing  colors  her  surpassing  beauty  and  the  everlasting, 
transcendent  bliss  of  her  inhabitants. 

The  book  closes  with  an  epilogue  in  which  the  seer 
describes  its  significance  and  urges  the  readers  to  keep  the 
things  that  are  written  on  its  pages,  22 :  7-21. 

CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  The  Revelation  of  John  is  the  only  prophetic  book  in 
the  New  Testament.  It  is  called  a  prophecy  in  1 :  3,  22 :  7, 
10,  18,  19.  A  nearer  description  of  the  book  is  given,  how- 
ever, in  the  name  Apocalypse,  for  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween the  prophetic  books  of  the  Bible  in  general  and  that 
part  of  them  that  may  be  said  to  belong  to  the  Apocalyptic 
literature.  Naturally  the  two  have  some  elements  in  com- 
mon :  they  both  contain  communications,  mediated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  of  the  character,  will  and  purposes  of  God ;  and 
the  one  as  well  as  the  other  looks  to  the  future  of  the  King- 
dom of  God.  But  there  are  also  points  of  difference. 
Prophecy,  while  it  certainly  has  reference  also  to  the  future 
of  God's  Kingdom,  is  mainly  concerned  with  a  divine  inter- 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  341 

pretation  of  the  past  and  the  present,  while  the  chief  interest 
of  Apocalyptic  lies  in  the  future.  Prophecy  again,  where  it 
does  reveal  the  future,  shows  this  in  its  organic  relation  with 
principles  and  forces  that  are  already  working  in  the  present, 
while  Apocalyptic  pictures  the  images  of  the  future,  not  as 
they  develop  out  of  existing  conditions,  but  as  they  are 
shown  directly  from  heaven  and  to  a  great  extent  in  super- 
natural forms. 

2.  A  characteristic  feature  of  the  bok  is  that  its  thought 
is  largely  clothed  in  symbolic  language  derived  from  some  of 
the  prophetic  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Hence  its  cor- 
rect understanding  is  greatly  facilitated  by  studying  the 
writer's  Old  Testament  sources.  Yet  we  must  constantly 
bear  in  mind  that  he  does  not  always  employ  the  language  so 
derived  in  its  original  significance.  Compare  ch.  18  with  Is. 
13,  14;  Jer.  50,  51 ; — 21  :  1 — 22:  5  with  various  parts  of  Is. 
40-66 ;  Ezek.  40-48 ;— 1 :  12-20  with  Dan.  7,  10 ;— ch.  4  with 
Is.  6;  Ezek.  1,  10.  But  however  dependent  the  author  may 
be  on  the  prophets,  he  does  not  slavishly  follow  them,  but 
uses  their  language  with  great  freedom.  The  symbolic  num- 
bers 3,  4,  7 ,  10,  12  and  their  multiples  also  play  an  important 
part  in  the  book. 

3.  The  language  of  the  Apocalypse  differs  from  that  of 
all  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  very  decidedly 
Hebraistic  Greek.  According  to  Simcox  its  vocabulary  is 
far  less  eccentric  than  its  style  and  grammar.  This  author 
in  his,  Writers  of  the  Neiv  Testament  pp.  80-89  classifies 
the  most  important  peculiarities  of  the  language  of  Revela- 
tion under  several  heads  :  ( 1 )  As  in  Hebrew  the  copula  is 
generally  omittted,  cf.  4:  1,  3;  5 : 2;  6:  8;  9:  7,  10,  16,  17; 
10:1;  11:8;  19:1,  12;  21:8,  13,  19.  (2)  Apparently  the 
writer,  at  least  in  several  instances,  does  not  use  the  Greek 
tenses  in  their  purely  temporal  sense,  but  more  like  the  He- 
brew perfect  and  imperfect,  cf .  2 :  5,  22,  24 ;  4:10;  10 :  7 ; 
12:4.  (3)  The  use  of  a  redundant  pronoun  or  pronominal 
adverb  is  very  frequent,  cf .  3  :  8 ;  7  :  2.  9  ;  12  :  6,  14 ;  13:12; 
17:9;  20:8.     (4)  When  two  nouns  are  in  opposition,  the 


342  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

second  is  usually  put  in  the  nominative,  whatever  be  the 
case  of  the  first,  cf .  1 :  5  ;  2 :  13,  20 ;  3  :  12 ;  7 :  4 ;  8 :  9 ;  9 :  14 ; 
14:  12,  14;  17:  3;  20:2.  (5)  There  are  some  irregularities 
which,  considered  abstractly  are  perfectly  legitimate,  but  are 
contrary  to  established  Greek  usage,  as  f.  i.  the  use  of  the 
dative  instead  of  the  double  accusative  in  2 :  14 ;  and  the  use 
of  the  plural  of  verbs  with  a  subject  in  the  neuter  nomina- 
tive, as  in  3  :  4 ;  4 :  5  ;  1 1 :  13.  (6)  False  concords  in  gender, 
constructions  ad  sensum  are  also  frequently  found,  4:7,  8 ; 
7 :  4,  8 ;  9 :  5,  6,  etc. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

The  external  testimony  for  the  authorship  of  the  apostle 
John  is  quite  strong.  Justin  Martyr  clearly  testifies  that  the 
book  was  written  by  "John  one  of  the  apostles  of  the  Lord." 
Irenaeus,  whose  teacher  was  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  John, 
gives  very  decisive  and  repeated  testimony  for  the  author- 
ship of  the  apostle.  The  Muratorian  Canon  mentions  John 
as  the  author  of  the  book,  and  the  context  shows  that  the 
son  of  Zebedee  is  meant.  Hippolytus  quotes  the  Apocalypse 
several  times  as  a  work  of  John ;  and  that  the  John  which 
he  has  in  mind  is  the  apostle,  is  clear  from  a  passage  in 
which  he  speaks  of  him  as  "an  apostle  and  disciple  of  the 
Lord."  Clement  of  Alexandria  names  the  apostle  as  the 
author  of  the  book,  as  do  also  Origen,  Victorinus,  Ephrem 
the  Syrian,  Epiphanius  e.  a.  In  the  West  Ambrose  and 
Augustine  repeatedly  quote  the  Apocalypse  as  written  by 
John  the  apostle,  and  Jerome  speaks  of  the  apostle  John  as 
also  being  a  prophet. 

This  strong  external  testimony  is  corroborated  by  in- 
ternal evidence:  (1)  The  author  repeatedly  calls  himself 
John,  1:1,  4,  9;  22:8,  and  there  is  but  one  person  who 
could  use  the  name  thus  absolutely  to  designate  himself 
without  fear  of  being  misunderstood,  viz.  John  the  apostle. 
(2)  The  writer  evidently  stood  in  some  special  relation  to 
the  churches  of  proconsular  Asia  (i.  e.  Mysia,  Lydia,  Caria 
and  a  part  of  Phrygia),  which  is  in  perfect  harmony  with 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  343 

the  fact  that  John  spent  the  later  years  of  his  life  at  Ephe- 
sus.  (3)  The  author  was  evidently  banished  to  the  island 
called  Patmos  in  the  Aegean  sea,  one  of  the  Sporades  to  the 
South  of  Samos.  Now  a  quite  consistent  tradition,  which  is, 
however,  discredited  by  some  scholars,  says  that  this  hap- 
pened to  the  apostle  John ;  and  there  are  some  features 
that  seem  to  mark  this  as  an  independent  tradition.  (4) 
There  are  also  notes  of  identity  between  the  writer  and  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and  of  I  John.  Like  in  John 
1 :  1  if .  and  I  John  1:1,  so  also  in  Rev.  19:  13  the  name 
6  XoYO?  is  given  to  our  Lord.  He  is  called  apv(ov  twenty- 
nine  times  in  this  book,  a  word  that  is  used  elsewhere  only 
in  John  21  :  15,  as  a  designation  of  the  disciples  of  the  Lord. 
It  is  remarkable  also  that  the  only  place,  where  Christ  is 
called  a  Lamb  outside  of  this  book,  is  in  John  1 :  29,  the  word 
d(jLv6<;  being  used.  The  term  dXY]6tv6<;,  found  but  once  in 
Luke,  once  in  Paul  and  three  times  in  Hebrews,  is  em- 
ployed nine  times  in  the  gospel  of  John,  four  times  in  the 
first  Epistle,  and  ten  times  in  the  Apocalypse,  though  not 
always  in  exactly  the  same  sense.  Compare  also  with  the 
repeated  expression  6  vtxov,  2:7,  11,  17,  etc.;  John  16:33; 
I  John  2:  13,  14;  4: 4;  5  :  4,  5. 

Still  there  have  been  dissentient  voices  from  the  begin- 
ning. The  Alogi  for  dogmatical  reasons  impugned  the 
authorship  of  John  and  ascribed  the  book  to  Cerinthus. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  for  more  critical  reasons,  but  also 
laboring  with  a  strong  anti-chiliastic  bias,  referred  it  to  an- 
other John  of  Ephesus.  Eusebius  wavered  in  his  opinion, 
but,  led  by  considerations  like  those  of  Dionysius,  was  in- 
clined to  regard  that  shadowy  person,  John  the  presbyter, 
as  the  author.  And  Luther  had  a  strong  dislike  for  the 
book,  because,  as  he  said,  Christ  was  neither  taught  nor 
recognized  in  it ;  and  because  the  apostles  did  not  deal  in 
visions,  but  spoke  in  clear  words,  he  declared  that  it  was 
neither  apostolic  nor  prophetic. 

The  Tubingen  school  accepted  the  Johannine  authorship 


344  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

of  the  Apocalypse,  while  it  denied  that  the  apostle  had  writ- 
ten any  of  the  other  books  that  are  generally  ascribed  to  him. 
A  great  and  increasing  number  of  critical  scholars,  however, 
do  not  believe  that  the  apostle  John  composed  the  Apoca- 
lypse. Some  of  them,  as  Hitzig,  Weiss  and  Spitta,  suggest 
John  Mark  as  the  author,  while  many  others,  such  as  Bleek, 
Credner,  Diisterdieck,  Keim,  Ewald,  Weizsacker  e.  a.,  re- 
gard it  as  the  work  of  John  the  presbyter.  The  principal 
objections  urged  against  the  authorship  of  the  apostle  are 
the  following :  ( 1 )  While  the  apostle  in  the  gospel  and  in 
the  first  Epistle  does  not  mention  his  name,  the  writer  of 
this  book  names  himself  both  in  the  first  and  in  the  third 
person.  (2)  The  genius  of  the  two  writers  is  quite  dififer- 
ent :  the  one  is  speculative  and  introspective,  the  other, 
imaginative,  looking  especially  to  the  external  course  of 
events ;  the  one  is  characterized  by  mildness  and  love,  the 
other  is  stern  and  revengeful ;  the  views  of  the  one  are 
spiritual  and  mystic,  those  of  the  other  are  sensuous  and 
plastic.  (3)  The  type  of  doctrine  found  in  the  Apocalypse 
has  a  Jewish  stamp  and  is  very  unlike  that  of  the  gospel  of 
John,  which  is  idealizing  and  breaks  away  from  the  Mosaic 
basis.  In  this  book  we  find  the  Old  Testament  conception 
of  God  as  a  fearful  Judge,  of  angels  and  demons,  and  of  the 
Church  as  the  new  Jerusalem.  There  are  twenty-four  elders 
round  about  the  throne,  twelve  thousand  of  each  tribe  that 
are  sealed,  and  the  names  of  the  apostles  are  engraved  on 
the  foundation  stones  of  the  heavenly  city.  Moreover  the 
necessity  of  good  works  is  strongly  emphasized,  cf.  chs. 
2,  3  and  also  14:  13.  (4)  The  style  of  the  book  is  of  a  very 
distinct  Hebraic  type,  different  from  anything  that  is  found 
in  the  other  writings  of  John.  Instead  of  the  regular  and 
comparatively  faultless  construction  of  the  Gospel,  we  here 
find  a  language  full  of  irregularities. 

But  we  do  not  believe  that  these  considerations  necessi- 
tate the  assumption  that  the  author  of  the  book  cannot  be 
identified  with  the  writer  of  the  fourth  gospel.  It  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  usage  of  the  historical  and  the 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  345 

prophetical  writers  of  the  Bible  throughout  that  the  writer 
conceals  his  name  in  the  Gospel  and  mentions  it  in  the 
Apocalypse.  The  different  light  in  which  we  see  him  in  his 
various  books  is  the  natural  result  of  the  vastly  different 
character  of  these  writings.  We  should  also  remember  that 
a  prophetic  book  naturally  reflects  far  less  of  the  personal 
character  of  its  author  than  epistolary  writings  do.  The 
alleged  Judaeistic  type  of  the  teachings  found  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse does  not  militate  against  the  authorship  of  John.  In 
a  symbolic  description  of  the  future  condition  of  the  Church 
it  is  perfectly  natural  and  indeed  very  fitting  that  the  author 
should  derive  his  symbolism  from  Old  Testament  sources, 
since  the  Old  Testament  is  symbolically  and  typically  re- 
lated to  the  New.  It  cannot  be  maintained  that  the  Christo- 
logical  and  Soteriological  teaching  of  the  Apocalypse  is  es- 
sentially Jewish.  The  Jews  that  oppose  Jesus  are  denounced, 
3:9;  the  Church  is  composed  of  people  out  of  every  nation, 
7:9;  salvation  is  the  free  gift  of  grace,  21 : 6;  22:  17;  and 
though  the  necessity  of  good  works  is  emphasized,  those  are 
not  regarded  as  meritorious,  but  as  the  fruits  of  righteous- 
ness, and  are  even  called  the  works  of  Jesus,  2 :  26.  The 
strongest  argument  against  the  authorship  of  John  is  un- 
doubtedly that  derived  from  the  style  and  language  of  the 
book.  There  has  been  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  some 
scholars,  as  Olshausen  and  Guericke,  to  explain  the  linguis- 
tic differences  between  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel  of 
John  by  assuming  that  the  former  preceded  the  latter  by 
about  20  or  25  years,  in  which  time  the  author's  knowledge 
of  Greek  gradually  matured.  But  the  differences  are  of  such 
a  kind  that  it  may  be  doubted,  whether  the  lapse  of  a  few 
years  can  account  for  them.  The  language  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  not  that  of  the  Apocalypse  in  a  more  developed 
form.  While  it  is  questionable,  whether  an  altogether  satis- 
factory explanation  can  be  given  with  the  data  at  hand,  it 
seems  certain  that  the  solution  must  be  found,  at  least  in 
part,  in  the  transcendent  nature  of  the  subject-matter  and 
in  the  symbolic  character  of  the  book.     The  fact  that  the 


346  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

author  so  often  violates  the  rules  of  Greek  grammar,  does 
not  necessarily  mean  that  he  did  not  know  them,  but  may 
also  indicate  that  under  the  stress  of  the  lofty  ideas  that 
he  wished  to  express,  he  naturally  resorted  to  Aramaic 
usage,  which  was  easier  for  him.  The  facts  in  the  case  do 
not  prove  that  the  Greek  of  the  Gospel  is  superior  to  that  of 
the  Apocalypse.  In  the  former  writing  the  author  does  not 
attempt  so  much  as  in  the  latter ;  the  language  of  the  one  is 
far  simpler  than  that  of  the  other. 

DESTINATION. 

The  apostle  addresses  the  Apocalypse  to  "the  seven 
churches  which  are  in  Asia,"  1:4.  Undoubtedly  this  num- 
ber is  not  exhaustive  but  representative  of  the  Church  in 
general,  the  number  seven,  which  is  the  number  of  complete- 
ness, forming  a  very  important  element  in  the  texture  of 
this  prophetic  writing.  These  churches  are  types  that  are 
constantly  repeated  in  history.  There  are  always  some 
churches  that  are  predominantly  good  and  pure  like  those 
of  Smyrna  and  Philadelphia,  and  therefore  need  no  reproof 
but  only  words  of  encouragement ;  but  there  are  also  con- 
stantly others  like  Sardis  and  Laodicea  in  which  evil  pre- 
ponderates, and  that  deserve  severe  censure  and  an  earnest 
call  to  repentance.  Probably  the  greater  number  of 
churches,  however,  will  always  resemble  those  of  Ephesus, 
Pergamus  and  Thyatire  in  that  good  and  evil  are  about 
equally  balanced  in  their  circle,  so  that  they  call  for  both 
commendation  and  censure,  promise  and  threatening.  But 
while  there  is  a  great  difference  both  in  the  outward  cir- 
cumstances and  in  the  internal  condition  of  these  churches, 
they  all  form  a  part  of  the  militant  Church  that  has  a  severe 
struggle  on  earth  in  which  it  must  strive  to  overcome  by 
faith  (notice  the  constantly  repeated  6  vtxov)  and  that 
may  expect  the  coming  of  the  Lord  to  reward  her  according 
to  her  works. 

COMPOSITION. 

1.    Occasion  and  Purpose.    The  historical  condition  that 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  347 

led  to  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse  was  one  of  increas- 
ing hardships  for  the  Church  and  of  an  imminent  life  and 
death  struggle  with  the  hostile  world,  represented  by  the 
Roman  empire.  The  demand  for  the  deification  of  the  em- 
peror became  ever  more  insistent  and  was  extended  to  the 
provinces.  Domitian  was  one  of  the  emperors  who  delighted 
to  be  styled  dominus  et  deus.  To  refuse  this  homage  was 
disloyalty  and  treason ;  and  since  the  Christians  as  a  body 
were  bound  to  ignore  this  demand  from  the  nature  of  their 
religion,  they  stood  condemned  as  constituting  a  danger  to 
the  empire.  Persecution  was  the  inevitable  result  and  had 
already  been  suffered  by  the  churches,  when  this  book  was 
written,  while  still  greater  persecution  was  in  store  for  them. 
Hence  they  needed  consolation  and  the  Lord  directed  John 
to  address  the  Apocalypse  to  them.  Cf.  especially  Ramsay, 
The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  pp.  252-319. 

It  is  but  natural  therefore  that  the  contents  of  the  book 
are  mainly  consolatory.  It  aims  at  revealing  to  the  servants 
of  Christ,  i.  e.  to  Christians  in  general  the  things  that  must 
shortly  (not  quickly,  but  before  long)  come  to  pass.  This 
note  of  time  is  to  be  considered  as  a  prophetic  formula,  in 
connection  with  the  fact  that  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a 
thousand  years  and  thousand  years  as  one  day.  The  central 
theme  of  the  book  is,  'T  come  quickly,"  and  in  the  elabora- 
tion of  this  theme  Christ  is  pictured  as  coming  in  terrible 
judgments  on  the  world,  and  in  the  great  final  struggle  in 
which  He  is  conqueror,  and  after  which  the  ecclesia  mili- 
tans  is  transformed  into  the  ecclesia  triumphans. 

2.  Time  and  Place.  There  are  especially  two  opinions 
as  to  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse,  viz.  (1)  that  it 
was  written  toward  the  end  of  Domitian's  reign,  about  A. 
D.  95  or  96;  and  (2)  that  it  was  composed  between  the 
death  of  Nero  in  the  year  68  and  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. 

( 1 ) .  The  late  date  was  formerly  the  generally  accepted 
time  of  composition  ( Hengstenberg,  Lange,  Alford,  Godet 
e.  a.)  and,  although  for  a  time  the  earlier  date  was  looked 


348  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

upon  with  great  favor,  there  is  now  a  noticeable  return  to 
the  old  position  (Holtzmann,  Warfield,  Ramsay,  Porter 
(Hastings  D.  B.),  Moffat  (Exp.  Gk.  Test.)  e.  a.  This  view 
is  favored  by  the  following  considerations:  (a)  The  testi- 
mony of  antiquity.  While  there  are  a  few  witnesses  that 
refer  the  book  to  an  earlier  date,  the  majority,  and  among 
them  Irenaeus  whose  testimony  should  not  lightly  be  set 
aside,  point  to  the  time  of  Domitian.  (b)  The  antithesis  of 
the  Roman  empire  to  the  Church  presupposed  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse. The  persecution  of  Nero  was  a  purely  local  and  some- 
what private  affair.  The  Church  did  not  stand  opposed  to 
the  empire  as  representing  the  world  until  the  first  century 
was  approaching  its  close ;  and  the  Apocalypse  already  looks 
back  on  a  period  of  persecution.  Moreover  we  know  that 
banishment  was  a  common  punishment  in  the  time  of  Domi- 
tian. (c)  The  existence  and  condition  of  the  seven  churches 
in  Asia.  The  utter  silence  of  Acts  and  of  the  Epistles  re- 
garding the  churches  of  Smyrna,  Philadelphia,  Sardis,  Per- 
gamus  and  Thyatira  favors  the  supposition  that  they  were 
founded  after  the  death  of  Paul.  And  the  condition  of 
these  churches  presupposes  a  longer  period  of  existence  than 
the  earlier  date  will  allow.  Ephesus  has  already  left  her 
first  love;  in  Sardis  and  Laodicea  spiritual  life  has  almost 
become  extinct ;  the  Nicolaitans,  who  are  not  mentioned 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  have  already  made  their 
pernicious  influence  felt  in  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and 
Pergamus,  while  similar  mischief  was  done  in  Thyatira  by 
the  woman  Jesebel.  Moreover  Laodicea,  which  was  de- 
stroyed by  an  earthquake  in  the  6th  (Tactitus)  or  in  the  10th 
(Eusebius)  year  of  Nero,  is  here  described  as  boasting  of 
her  wealth  and  self-sufffciency. 

(2).  Against  this  and  in  favor  of  the  earlier  date,  de- 
fended by  Diisterdieck,  Weiss,  Guericke,  Schaff,  are  urged : 
(a)  The  late  testimony  of  the  Syrian  Apocalypse  that  John 
was  banished  in  the  time  of  Nero,  and  the  obscure  and  self- 
contradictory  passage  in  Epiphanius  that  places  the  banish- 
ment in  the  time  of  Claudius.     Cf.  Alford,  Prolegamena 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  349 

Section  II.  14,  where  the  weakness  of  this  testimony  is 
pointed  out.  (b)  The  supposed  references  in  the  /Vpocalypse 
to  the  destruction  of  the  Holy  City  as  still  future  in  11  :  1, 
2,  13.  But  it  is  quite  evident  that  these  passages  must  be 
understood  symbolically.  Regarded  as  historical  predic- 
tions of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  they  did  not  come  true, 
for  according  to  11:2  only  the  outer  court  would  be  abol- 
ished, and  according  to  vs.  13  merely  the  tenth  part  of  the 
city  would  be  destroyed,  and  that  not  by  Rome  but  by  an 
earthquake,  (c)  The  supposed  indications  of  the  reigning 
emperor  in  13:  1  ff.,  especially  in  connection  with  the  sym- 
bolical interpretation  of  the  number  666  as  being  equal  to 
the  Hebrew  form  of  Nero  Ceasar.  But  the  great  diversity 
of  opinion  as  to  the  correct  interpretation  of  these  passages, 
even  among  the  advocates  of  the  early  date,  proves  that 
their  support  is  very  questionable,  (d)  The  difference  be- 
tween the  language  of  this  book  and  that  of  the  Gospel  of 
John  is  thought  to  favor  an  early  date,  but,  as  we  have 
already  pointed  out,  this  is  not  necessarily  the  case. 

It  is  impossible  to  tell,  whether  John  wrote  the 
Apocalypse  while  he  was  still  on  the  island  of  Patmos,  or 
after  his  return  from  there.  The  statement  in  10:4  does 
not  prove  the  former  theory,  nor  the  past  tenses  in  1:2,  9, 
the  latter. 

3.  Method.  Of  late  several  theories  have  been  broached 
to  explain  the  origin  of  the  Apocalypse  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  account  satisfactorily  for  the  literary  and  psychological 
features  of  the  book.  (1)  The  Incorporation-hypothesis 
holds  to  the  unity  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  believes  that  sev- 
eral older  fragments  of  Jewish  or  Christian  origin  are  in- 
corporated in  it  (Weizsacker,  Sabatier,  Bousset,  McGiffert, 
Moffat,  Baljon).  (2)  The  Revision-hypothesis  assumes  that 
the  book  has  been  subject  to  one  or  more  revisions,  (Erbes, 
Briggs,  Barth).  The  last  named  author  is  of  the  opinion 
that  John  himself  in  the  time  of  Domitian  revised  an 
Apocalypse  which  he  had  written  under  Nero.  (3)  The 
Compilation-hypothesis  teaches  that  two  or  more   sources 


350  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

fairly  complete  in  themselves  have  been  pieced  together  by 
a  redactor  or  redactors,  (Weyland,  Spitta,  Volter  at  least 
in  part).  (4)  The  Jewish  and  Christian  hypothesis  main- 
tains that  the  gromidwork  of  the  Apocalypse  was  a  Jewish 
writing  in  the  Aramaic  language,  written  about  65-70,  that 
was  later  translated  and  edited  by  a  Christian  (Vischer, 
Harnack,  Martineau).  In  connection  with  these  we  can 
only  say  that  to  us  these  theories  seem  unnecessary  and  in 
the  majority  of  cases  very  arbitrary.  There  is  every  reason 
to  maintain  the  unity  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  use  of  written 
sources  in  its  composition  is  an  unproved  assumption ;  but 
the  author  was  evidently  impregnated  with  Old  Testament 
ideas  and  modes  of  expression,  and  drew  largely  on  the 
storehouse  of  his  memory  in  the  symbolic  description  of  the 
supernatural  scenes  that  were  presented  to  his  vision. 

INTERPRETATION. 

Various  principles  of  interpretation  have  been  adopted 
with  reference  to  this  book  in  the  course  of  time : 

1.  The  older  expositors  and  the  majority  of  orthodox 
Protestant  commentators  adopted  the  Continuist  (kirchen- 
geschichtliche)  interpretation,  which  proceeds  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  book  contains  a  prophetic  compendium  of 
Church  history  from  the  first  Christian  century  until  the 
return  of  Christ,  so  that  some  of  its  prophecies  have  now 
been  realized  and  others  still  await  fulfilment.  This  theory 
disregards  the  contemporaneous  character  of  the  seven  series 
of  visions  and  has  often  led  to  all  sorts  of  vain  speculations 
and  calculations  as  to  the  historical  facts  in  which  particular 
prophecies  are  fulfilled. 

2.  In  course  of  time  the  Futurist  (endgeschichtliche) 
interpretation  found  favor  with  some,  according  to  which 
all  or  nearly  all  the  events  described  in  the  Apocalypse  must 
be  referred  to  the  period  immediately  preceding  the  return 
of  Christ.  (Zahn,  Kliefoth)  Some  of  the  Futurists  are 
so  extreme  that  they  deny  even  the  past  existence  of  the 
seven  Asiatic  churches  and  declare  that  we  may  yet  expect 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  351 

them  to  arise  in  the  last  days.  As  a  matter  of  course  this 
interpretation  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  historical  element  in 
the  book. 

3.  Present  day  critical  scholars  are  generally  inclined  to 
adopt  the  Prasterist  (zeitgeschichtliche)  interpretation, 
which  holds  that  the  view  of  the  Seer  was  limited  to  mat- 
ters within  his  own  historical  horizon,  and  that  the  book 
refers  principally  to  the  triumph  of  Christianity  over  Judae- 
ism  and  Paganism,  signalized  in  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem 
and  Rome.  On  this  view  all  or  almost  all  the  prophecies 
contained  in  the  book  have  already  been  fulfilled.  (Bleek, 
Diisterdieck,  Davidson,  F.  C.  Porter  e.  a.)  But  this  theory 
does  not  do  justice  to  the  prophetic  element  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse. 

Though  all  these  views  must  be  regarded  as  one-sided, 
each  one  contains  an  element  of  truth  that  must  be  taken 
in  consideration  in  the  interpretation  of  the  book.  The 
descriptions  in  it  certainly  had  a  point  of  contact  in  the  his- 
torical present  of  the  Seer,  but  they  go  far  beyond  that  pres- 
ent; they  certainly  pertain  to  historical  conditions  of  the 
Church  of  God,  and  conditions  that  will  exist  in  all  ages, 
but  instead  of  arising  successively  in  the  order  in  which  they 
are  described  in  the  Apocalypse,  they  make  their  appear- 
ance in  every  age  contemporaneously ;  and  finally  they  will 
certainly  issue  in  a  terrific  struggle  immediately  preceding 
the  parousia  of  Christ  and  in  the  transcendent  glory  of  the 
bride  of  the  Lamb. 

INSPIRATION. 

The  particular  form  of  inspiration  in  which  the  writer 
shared  was  the  prophetic,  as  is  perfectly  evident  from  the 
book  itself.  The  author,  while  in  the  Spirit,  was  the  recipi- 
ent of  divine  revelations,  1:1,  10,  and  received  his  intelli- 
gence by  means  of  visions,  in  part  at  least  mediated  and 
interpreted  by  angels.  1  :  10,  19  ;  4 :  1,  2  ;  5  :  1 ;  6 :  1  ;  17  :  7-18 ; 
21 : 9.  He  received  the  command  to  write  and  to  prophecy 
from  God  himself,  1:19;  10:4,  11;  14:13.     And  the  'T" 


352  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

speaking  in  the  book  is  sometimes  that  of  the  Lord  himself 
and  sometimes  that  of  the  prophet,  which  is  also  a  charac- 
teristic mark  of  the  prophetic  inspiration.  In  chapters  2  and 
3  f.  i.  the  Lord  speaks  in  the  first  person,  and  again  in 
16:  15  and  22:7. 

CANONICAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 

The  canonical  authority  of  the  Apocalypse  has  never 
been  seriously  doubted  by  the  Church.  Hermas,  Papias  and 
Melito  recognized  its  canonicity,  and  according  to  Eusebius 
Theophilus  cited  passages  from  it.  The  three  great  wit- 
nesses of  the  end  of  the  second  century  all  quote  it  by  name 
and  thus  recognize  its  authority.  Hippolytus  and  Origen 
also  regarded  it  as  canonical.  Similarly  Victorinus,  Am- 
brose, Jerome  and  Augustine.  Gradually,  however,  the  fact 
that  Millenarians  found  their  chief  support  in  the  book, 
made  it  obnoxious  to  some  of  the  Church  fathers,  who 
deemed  it  inexpedient  to  read  it  in  the  churches.  This  ex- 
plains, why  it  is  absent  from  some  MSS.  and  from  some  of 
the  catalogues  of  the  ancient  councils. 

The  book  is  primarily  a  book  of  consolation  for  the  mili- 
tant Church  in  its  struggles  with  the  hostile  world  and  with 
the  powers  of  darkness.  It  directs  the  glance  of  the  strug- 
gling, suffering,  sorrowing  and  often  persecuted  Church 
toward  its  glorious  future.  Its  central  teaching  is,  "I  come 
quickly !"  And  while  it  reveals  the  future  history  of  the 
Church  as  one  of  continual  struggle,  it  unfolds  in  majestic 
visions  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  which  issues  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  wicked  and  of  the  evil  One,  and  in  the  everlasting 
bliss  of  the  faithful  witnesses  of  Jesus  Christ.  Hence  the 
book  comes  to  the  enemies  of  God's  Kingdom  with  words 
of  solemn  warning  and  with  threatenings  of  future  punish- 
ment, while  it  encourages  the  followers  of  the  Lord  to  ever 
greater  faithfulness,  and  opens  up  to  them  bright  visions  of 
the  future,  thus  inspiring  the  Church's  constant  prayer: 
"Even  so,  come,  Lord  Jesus !" 


BS2361 .B51 

New  Testament  introduction  (or  special 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1012  00060  8200 


